Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan addition after finding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness established through PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and TDS records.
The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case under the mistaken belief that no scrutiny assessment had been made. Such factual error and absence of new incriminating material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
The Tribunal emphasized that assumptions based on common names cannot justify major tax additions. Without documentary linkage or banking trail confirmation, the Revenue’s case could not stand.
The case involved alleged bogus job-work transactions linked to a third party. The Tribunal found the receipts were genuine business income duly audited and taxed, leading to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. Once adequate inquiry is conducted and a reasonable view is taken, revision is unsustainable.
Once the Tribunal ruled that foreign salary was not taxable in India, consequential additions for alleged unexplained investments and deposits were also deleted. The appeal was allowed in full.
The Tribunal emphasized that substantive justice prevails over technical PAN mismatch. Since income of the deceased was offered and accepted, TDS credit had to be allowed to the legal heir.
The decision clarifies that the monetary threshold under Section 149 applies to actual taxable income, not purchase turnover. As the addition fell below ₹50 lakh, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
