Though earlier dismissed for non-prosecution, the Tribunal evaluated the substantive grounds relating to bonus disallowance and income inclusion, granting partial relief.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer after finding that important objections on land classification and cost of acquisition were not verified. A fresh decision must be made after proper examination.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal examined the levy of late fees under Section 234E for TDS defaults prior to the Finance Act 2015 amendment. It held that Section 234E, as a charging provision, was enforceable even before procedural updates in Section 200A. The ruling emphasizes that machinery provisions cannot negate substantive liabilities.
The Tribunal recognized the assessee’s health issues and financial weakness as valid grounds for condoning delay, following the Supreme Court’s principle favouring substantial justice. It held that repeated notices for the same enquiry cannot multiply the default. Consequently, the penalty was scaled down to a single default, offering relief of ₹40,000.
ITAT Indore held that the registered sale-deed would relate back to and have effect from 26.03.2013 falling with previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 and hence the impugned transaction of sale was taxable in AY 2013-14 and not in 2014-15. Accordingly, reopening of assessment for AY 2014-2015 is illegal and unsustainable.
ITAT Indore held that the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act made out by authorities, without serving notice upon assessee, would be invalid and inoperative. Accordingly, action undertaken by AO u/s. 147/148 will also be illegal.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB could not be levied because no incriminating documents were found during the search. It ruled that mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income under the statutory definition.
The ITAT remanded a case where a charitable society’s 80G(5) registration was rejected because incidental sales were misclassified as business income. The Tribunal emphasized evaluating the society’s charitable purpose and proper documentation.
ITAT Indore held that Proviso to section 12A(2) was very much available for AY 2018-19. Thus, the assessee is eligible to exemption u/s 11/12 on the basis of Proviso to section 12A(2). Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
