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.
The appeals were dismissed solely due to delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that substantive justice requires condonation, though costs may be imposed for repeated defaults.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal condoned an 893-day delay citing genuine medical reasons and decided the appeal on merits. It held that cash deposits arising from business receipts cannot be split arbitrarily and must be assessed through reasonable profit estimation.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal condoned a 458-day delay after an appeal order was sent to the wrong counsel. The case was remanded for fresh hearing to ensure the assessee’s full opportunity to present evidence in a demonetisation cash-deposit matter.
