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.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment year because the Assessing Officer relied solely on entries in the regular books of account. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s mandate that no addition is permissible in completed (unabated) assessments without specific, incriminating material seized during the search.
The ITAT quashed an assessment where the taxpayer’s declared income exceeded the Rs.30 Lakh limit for an ITO in a metro city. Relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and Calcutta High Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that the assessment suffered from a lack of inherent jurisdiction and was void ab initio.
An assessment was quashed as the ACIT (a senior authority) issued the reassessment notice for an income below the Rs.15 Lakh limit, which was exclusively the ITO’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal affirmed that this jurisdictional defect is fatal and cannot be cured, following the Bombay High Court’s ruling.
The ITAT quashed a scrutiny assessment because the Rs.143(2) notice was issued by the ITO, a junior officer, despite the declared corporate income exceeding the Rs. 30 Lakh metro city limit. Jurisdiction for issuing the notice and conducting the assessment belonged solely to the DCIT, making the entire proceeding illegal.
