The AO virtually passed an ex parte order regarding a70 lakh addition, ignoring the assessee’s detailed submissions and denying a proper opportunity. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the matter for a fresh adjudication, confirming that violations of natural justice necessitate a proper de novo inquiry.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows appeal in Somnath Bandopadhaya v. ITO, deleting ₹2.27 crore addition under Section 69A after verifying explained bank deposits.
The Revenue treated a documented sale of gold, with payment received via RTGS, as a bogus accommodation entry solely based on the buyer’s failure to reply to a section 133(6) notice. The Tribunal held that concrete evidence, including the full bank trail, stock records, and invoice, outweighs a general investigation report or the non-cooperation of a third party, and deleted the unjustified addition under section 69A.
The ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
Ahmedabad ITAT set aside an ex-parte order confirming ₹1.63 Cr tax additions against a real estate operator, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee’s written submissions and the AO’s Remand Report.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty under Section 271BA, ruling that failure to electronically file the Form 3CEB transfer pricing report was a mere technical and procedural default. Crucially, the report was prepared before the search and later physically filed with the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
Where temporary loans received and repaid through banking channels, with identity and creditworthiness of lender proved, the sa,e could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination was invalid.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a charitable trusts tax case, ruling that the AO violated natural justice by making a Rs. 2.24 crore addition based on a third-party search statement without providing the assessee with copies of the statement or documents for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after giving the trust a proper opportunity to contest the evidence.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
