The issue was dismissal of appeals for non-payment of admitted tax without hearing on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeals, holding that the assessee deserved an opportunity to explain advance tax liability.
The Tribunal held that when no other income source exists, bank deposits linked to business cannot be taxed separately. Estimation must reflect commercial realities of the trade.
The case involved rejection of cash deposits due to alleged improbability of holding cash. The Tribunal ruled that presumptions cannot override a registered sale deed and disclosed capital gains.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could bypass jurisdictional objections by remanding the case. The tribunal held that legal grounds striking at jurisdiction must be adjudicated first.
The ruling clarifies that once a reassessment return is accepted, earlier returns lose relevance for penalty purposes. In the absence of defects in the reassessment return, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
The tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153C cannot stand without valid satisfaction as mandated by law. Failure to examine this jurisdictional issue vitiates the proceedings.
The case examined whether reassessment after four years was valid when the issues were already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held the reopening invalid as a mere change of opinion and quashed the reassessment.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void as approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is that failure to comply with section 151(ii) invalidates the entire reassessment.
