This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a major protective tax addition against a firm, ruling it would result in double taxation. Evidence proved the corresponding income, found on seized loose papers, was personal to a partner and had already been declared and taxed in the partner’s individual return.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period and without sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
The ITAT held that alleged on-money based on an unverified photocopy of a sale agreement could not be added to income, emphasizing that a registered sale deed is the primary document. Furthermore, payments made in the next financial year cannot be taxed in the current Assessment Year, leading to a significant deletion of the unexplained investment addition.
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 9.70 crore based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a seller recorded during a search. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that a bare Section 132(4) statement without any corroborative evidence (like seized material, book entries, or proof of delivery) is insufficient to prove the cash transaction against a third party.
Description: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of an Exemption-registered society that challenged its reassessment on the legal ground that the AO failed to issue a Section 143(2) notice. The ruling confirms that this notice is mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 143(3) read with 47, even if the return was filed belatedly.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Jaipur held that surrendered income during survey cannot be treated as unexplained income or money u/s. 69 & 69A of the Income Tax Act and tax in accordance with provisions of section 115BBE. The same has to be assessed to tax under ‘business income’.
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
