The Tribunal held that only the first non-compliance under Section 142(1) could attract penalty, deleting the remaining ₹50,000 imposed for repeated defaults. It also restored penalties under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) for fresh adjudication since they depend on the pending quantum appeal.
ITAT held that Section 69 cannot apply when the assessee is not proved to own the cash. Unrebutted affidavits established the source, and mere suspicion cannot justify an addition.
Tribunal held that a reassessment cannot be triggered solely on another person’s search statement. With no evidence against the assessee, the 147 proceedings and bogus-purchase addition were struck down.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order, confirming deletion of additions related to unexplained creditors, GST, bogus purchases, and purchase differences. Proper reconciliation and supporting documents established genuineness, highlighting the importance of maintaining accurate records.
Receipt and repayment of Rs. 2.02 crore via proper banking channels establishes genuineness of the transaction; Section 68 addition was deleted despite non-materialisation of business.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that income and valuation additions based solely on third-party digital data or statements cannot be made without corroboration from the assessee’s records, leading to deletion of disputed amounts.
ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, citing genuine non-receipt of the order by the assessee and restored the matter for reconsideration.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that cash gifts from close relatives, supported by affidavits and audited accounts, cannot be treated as unexplained income. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
Assessee succeeded in cross-objection as reassessment lacked jurisdiction and Section 69C addition was inapplicable, confirming deletion of addition and quashing proceedings.
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
