The ITAT Visakhapatnam reduced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) from Rs.30,000 to Rs.10,000 after treating non-compliance with three notices under Section 142(1) as a single default. The Tribunal granted partial relief while holding that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey number error. It directed deletion of the duplicate addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Tribunal found the DRP’s order cryptic and lacking proper analysis on similarity of business activities between the assessee and selected comparables. Fresh examination was directed regarding comparability and ALP computation.
The Tribunal ruled that exemption under Section 11(2) should not be denied solely due to delayed filing of Form-10. It directed reconsideration where the form was available during assessment.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal condoned a 161-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence showing the assessee suffered an accident and dengue fever. The ruling reiterates that courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condonation matters.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
