The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that the CIT(A) is empowered to set aside and remand assessments made under Section 144 to the AO under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting AO’s additions on depreciation, excess stock, and gross profit, confirming machinery was in use and books were reliable.
The Tribunal permitted withdrawal after the appellant cited an inadvertent error and confirmed that a fresh appeal was already pending. The case was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that hearing notices were sent to the wrong email address, resulting in an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded to the AO after directing the assessee to deposit ₹5,000 as costs.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The ruling directs re-examination of three loan transactions after new evidence was produced for the first time. The loan from one creditor was accepted and the related addition deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts paid directly to a confirming party did not accrue to the seller and could not be treated as capital gains. The Section 263 revision was invalidated because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that both assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte. The case was returned to the AO with directions to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect carry-forward loss claim arose from an inadvertent mistake and was not deliberate. The penalty was deleted after noting absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
