The Assessing Officer proceeded with reassessment after three years based solely on PCIT approval. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with Section 151 is mandatory, and failure renders the notice under Section 148 void.
Reassessment was quashed as the statutory process under the faceless regime was not followed end-to-end by the same authority. Such jurisdictional inconsistency vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated solely on a Revenue audit objection, without fresh tangible material, is invalid. Reopening beyond four years on the same facts examined earlier amounts to impermissible change of opinion.
Where income admitted in section 153C proceedings is accepted in assessment, penalty still requires strict compliance with section 270A. Absence of a specific misreporting charge defeats penalty levy.
The ITAT Chennai held a reassessment notice under section 148 invalid as it was issued after the statutory limitation expired, emphasizing strict compliance with time limits.
The Tribunal held that mere possession of cash during seizure does not establish ownership for section 69A. Where the source is explained and ownership lies elsewhere, addition in the carrier’s hands is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 on 31.07.2022 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation under the amended section 149. Reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.
Applying a liberal approach, the tribunal condoned delay in appeal filing and examined the jurisdictional defect. Since reopening was initiated by the wrong authority, the assessment could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the tax department cannot substitute actual sale consideration with a notional market price without express legal provision, and deleted the entire addition.
Chennai ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29-03-2022 are invalid under the mandatory faceless assessment framework, quashing all consequential orders while preserving the Revenue’s right to revive proceedings if Apex Court rules otherwise.
