The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s V.C. Shukla principle, reaffirming that loose papers seized from third parties are without evidentiary value unless properly linked to the assessee through verified facts. ITAT, therefore, quashed both the 69A addition and the underlying 147 reopening as being based on mere surmises and conjectures.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that a Section 148 reassessment notice issued to Sulochana Devi Bagaria, who had died before the notice date, was bad in law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) against Rashi Impex Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2010-11.
ITAT Kolkata sets aside ₹1.86 Cr tax addition, ruling that CIT(A) must pass a reasoned order on merits and cannot merely uphold the AO’s view or dismiss an appeal for non-compliance.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the revisionary order, finding the PCITs basis—that no supporting documents for the share LTCG were on record—was factually incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the AO had taken a plausible view after due inquiry, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to substitute his own view for the AOs.
ITAT Kolkata rules that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material, citing the Supreme Court’s Abhisar Buildwell judgment.
The ITAT deleted a Rs. 23.30 Lakh protective addition made in the firm’s hands under Section 68, as the corresponding cash deposit had already been offered to tax by the partners. The Tribunal ruled that once the real recipient (partners) has paid tax, the protective assessment on the firm becomes redundant and cannot lead to double taxation.
The issue was whether the AO could make an addition for unexplained share capital and premium without finding any defect in the extensive documentation filed by the taxpayer. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must make an independent inquiry and bring contrary material; mere suspicion or non-appearance cannot override the legal requirement that the addition must be based on a failure to prove the creditor’s details.
The Tribunal held that an AO cannot treat a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice as non-est while using it as the base for computing the final income. Following High Court precedent, the ITAT confirmed that once the return is taken into account for assessment, the issue of Section 143(2) notice becomes a prerequisite, making the assessment void.
ITAT Kolkata deletes a lakh addition made u/s 69A against an interior decorator, ruling the amount cannot be taxed as unexplained money if already offered to tax.
