CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.1.42 crores and remaining addition of Rs.3.35 crores, which was closing balance of loans were deleted. Further aggrieved, the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
ITAT restored appeal of Trupti Ashishkumar Desai against an addition under Section 69A, emphasizing need for fair opportunity and compliance.
ITAT Surat held that considering the veracity of evidence, additional evidence filed by the assessee is essential and has direct bearing on all the additions/ disallowance, hence, all the additional evidence are taken on record. Accordingly, matter restored back.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization confirmed by both AO and CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order. However, majority of cash deposits are prior to demonetization period. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh verification.
ITAT Surat held that when any expense is not claimed, no disallowance is permissible. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 43B on account of unpaid service tax not warranted as the same is not claimed as deduction in P&L account.
ITAT Surat held that if the order passed in the original proceeding itself is illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings. Thus, revision order u/s. 263 quashed as order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B is invalid.
ITAT Surat held that addition based on unsigned, undated and unstamped Satakhat/ sale and purchase agreement cannot be sustained since such document has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69B deleted.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash credit in current year untenable since loan is received back in subsequent year and the same is accepted by the department. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Surat condoned the delay of 159 days in filing of an appeal as delay in filing appeal is not intentional nor deliberate and assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for not filing an appeal on time.
