ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that crucial JSK Server data, screenshots, and investigation records were never provided to the assessee. The ruling reiterates that additions based on undisclosed evidence violate principles of natural justice.
ITAT Raipur held that alleged bogus purchases relating to a partnership firm could not be taxed protectively in the hands of one partner without direct linkage. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the Rs.1.92 crore addition made on protective basis.
The ITAT Raipur held that additions for cessation of liability cannot be made merely because creditor confirmations were not filed when PAN details, ledger accounts, and other records were already submitted.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should reconsider the matter after the jurisdictional High Court decides pending cases concerning alleged bogus purchase bills by rice millers.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty proceedings initiated after unreasonable delay violated the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 275(1)(c). The Tribunal ruled that delayed penalty orders cannot survive once limitation expires.
ITAT Raipur held that additional evidence such as C-Forms cannot be relied upon by the appellate authority without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The issue involved additions based on alleged bogus purchases without VAT payment. The Tribunal remanded the matter pending the High Court’s decision on similar cases.
The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that such vagueness invalidates the entire penalty proceedings.
The issue involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal held that once books of account are accepted, deposits recorded therein cannot be treated as unexplained.
