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.
ITAT ruled that enhancement of income under section 251 without giving the assessee a proper hearing is invalid. The appeals were remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that mere absence of substantial activities since inception is not conclusive where charitable objects are genuine. A fresh opportunity must be granted to substantiate activities with evidence.
The ITAT held that a technical error in selecting an incorrect clause of section 12A(1)(ac) cannot justify rejection of registration. Where activities are genuine, authorities must allow rectification and decide the case on merits.
The appeal was filed late due to ongoing police proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal held this to be sufficient cause and restored the appeal for fresh consideration.
