The Tribunal set aside the appellate order after finding that no enquiry was conducted despite clear evidence in Form 26AS. The ruling underscores that undisputed pension income cannot be ignored without verification.
The tribunal examined whether an assessment under section 144 could survive without issuance of a notice under section 143(2). It held that non-issuance of the mandatory notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.
SEO Description: The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely on limitation without examining reasons for delay. The matter was remanded to decide condonation first, reinforcing natural justice principles.
The Tribunal examined opening cash balance of ₹6.16 lakh brought forward from prior year. CIT(A) had disallowed it, but AO verification confirmed its genuineness. ITAT set aside the addition under Section 69A and allowed the appeal.
ITAT Raipur remands bogus purchase disallowance for a rice miller, awaiting the High Court’s ruling. The case will be reconsidered de novo following legal principles once HC decides.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void because jurisdiction shifted between officers without a mandatory transfer order. It reaffirmed that proceedings without statutory jurisdiction are null and void.
ITAT held that an appeal delayed by almost six years must not be dismissed outright without examining genuine hardships. Medical evidence of the assessee’s child justified potential condonation of delay. The case highlights the balance between limitation and natural justice.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
ITAT Raipur ruled that cash deposits made by an advocate on behalf of clients cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A)/NFAC conducted no inquiry and ignored over 100 supporting challans. This reinforces the principle that evidence and factual verification are essential before making additions.
