The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed on the assumption of earlier adjudication without evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
Rejecting the revenue’s digital-era argument, the Tribunal held that taxpayers need reasonable time to compile records. The matter was sent back for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority lacks power to dismiss appeals solely for non-prosecution. Appeals must be decided on merits with reasoned findings.
The issue was whether reopening is valid when the information relied upon is not shared. The Tribunal held that failure to supply such material violates natural justice and vitiates reassessment.
The issue was whether commission income could be estimated without rejecting books of account. The Tribunal ruled that estimation without invoking section 145(3) and section 144 is impermissible.
The ruling clarifies that the power to admit or reject appeals under section 249(4) lies with NFAC/RFAC, not the Appeal Unit. Appeals were restored due to improper exercise of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated beyond three years requires approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. Sanction granted by the PCIT was invalid, rendering the entire reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are legally unsustainable. Since jurisdiction itself failed under TOLA principles, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The AO added ₹1 crore based on alleged cash receipts from third-party material. The Tribunal held the reopening itself was invalid, so the addition could not survive.
The Tribunal held that a summary and presumptive approval under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. Lack of independent application of mind by the approving authority renders the assessment non-est.
