ITAT restored an appeal after finding the delay was linked to notices sent to a former consultant and directed fresh disposal on merits after hearing.
ITAT Kolkata held that extensive documentary evidence, audited books, supplier confirmations and banking records established the genuineness of the purchases. It deleted the estimated addition sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2). As a result, the assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessments were invalid because the ACIT was not shown to have jurisdiction under CBDT Instructions or the Income-tax Act. The assessment orders were quashed without examining the merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous.
Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making disallowances beyond the selected issues without following the prescribed CBDT procedure. Such additions were held to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay was supported by sufficient cause, including the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation orders and an error by the assessee’s counsel. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was set aside.
