Raipur ITAT remanded the section 68 addition of ₹14.3 lakh, observing that NFAC/CIT(A) failed to examine confirmations, ITRs, or facts. The order lacked independent reasoning and was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT Raipur restored the appeal regarding deletion of ₹15.81 crore addition, highlighting procedural lapses by CIT(A) in accepting new evidence without remand. Key takeaway: AO’s verification is crucial before deleting large additions.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income. The AO issued a 200% penalty without identifying the statutory limb or giving reasons. Since the order lacked satisfaction and reasoning, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
ITAT Raipur set aside an ex-parte appellate order where the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by annulling assessment without addressing issue of alleged bogus purchases and directed a denovo adjudication on merits in compliance with Section 250(4) and (6).
ITAT held that funds from earlier years and IDS disclosures cannot justify cash deposits made in a later year without proper linkage or documentation. Addition under Section 68 was upheld.
The issue was the summary confirmation of an 8% estimated income addition on a hotel business by the NFAC without conducting independent inquiry or giving reasons. The ITAT set aside the non-speaking order, emphasizing that the CIT(A)’s powers are co-terminous with the AO’s, requiring proper investigation and a reasoned decision. The key takeaway is the mandate for appellate authorities to make an independent inquiry and not just rubber-stamp the AO’s order.
ITAT sustained PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling that AO’s mechanical acceptance of a low profit margin return without proper inquiry was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue’s interest. AO failed to examine applicability of mandatory audit under Section 44AB and correctness of declared profit ratio in liquor trade.
