ITAT Amritsar partly allows an appeal, reducing income addition from Rs. 3.88 lakhs to Rs. 6,000 for specified bank note deposits after SEO demonetization.
The ITAT sent a tax assessment case back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, citing the assessee’s claim of DIN absence in the assessment order. The appellate authority must now adjudicate on both the merits and the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 compliance.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
The ITAT set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
Upholding a crucial legal principle, the ITAT ruled that where a businesss income is estimated on a percentage-of-turnover basis, any additions made under 68 for items like unsecured loans or capital on the basis of unverified entries must be deleted. The decision provides relief by confirming that estimated net profit covers the source of cash and capital.
Where the only piece of evidence, AO possessed was the ‘Iqrarnama’, which was not found in the assessee’s possession, was not in their handwriting, and did not bear their genuine signatures, no addition could be made to the assessee’s income, treating it as unexplained money and interest.
Assessee did not comply with subsequent statutory notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under section 144, where the entire cash deposit was added back to its income under section 69A.
ITAT Amritsar held that the statements recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used for making addition unless and an opportunity to cross examine the witness is allowed. Accordingly, addition towards bogus purchases duly restricted to 1.2%.
Tribunal upholds turnover suppression in food delivery business, capping profit at 8% u/s 44AD based on survey findings and cook’s statement, overriding later-filed books.
ITAT Amritsar remands an appeal after finding that the CIT(A) failed to send notices to the correct email, denying the taxpayer a fair hearing.
