The Tribunal held that reassessment could not stand because the recorded reasons pertained to a different assessment year. The reopening was invalid, and all related additions were rendered infructuous.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash reflected in 26AS represents pass-through freight receipts, not actual turnover. Commission income below the audit threshold, hence tax audit under section 44AB was not required and penalty u/s 271B deleted.
ITAT partly allowed appeal against additions under section 144, applying 6% net profit instead of AO’s 8% on total cash deposits. Returned income under section 44AD was deducted, and normal tax rates applied instead of section 115BBE.
Tribunal holds that Section 28 interest forms part of compensation for compulsory acquisition and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. Confirms exemption under Section 10(37).
Reassessment notice issued beyond statutory time limit under Section 148 was invalid; Tribunal quashed proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The ITAT held that without a condonation petition, a 300-day delay cannot be excused. The ruling underscores that delay must be justified before merits—including Section 80P—can be considered.
The Tribunal held that the revision was invalid because the assessment caused no loss to Revenue, as agricultural income was exempt and the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries. The order under section 263 was therefore set aside.
Appeal delayed by 252 days due to counsel’s oversight was condoned by ITAT citing reasonable diligence. Tribunal then reduced unexplained cash addition under Section 69A to ₹1.8 lakh using a fair estimation method.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that TOLA extended the time for issuing notice, holding that for A.Y. 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2019. Consequently, the 21.04.2021 notice lacked legal authority. Key takeaway: TOLA does not revive time-barred assessments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no longer in existence. With the foundational assessment gone, the penalty had no legal justification. The decision underscores the principle that penalty actions fail when their basis disappears.
