ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
ITAT Pune ruled that cash deposits during the demonetization period were in Rs. 100 and Rs. 2,000 notes, reversing prior additions made under section 68.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the appeal could not be dismissed in limine. CIT(A) must issue a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s turnover before applying corporate tax. If turnover for FY 2018-19 is under ₹400 crore, the tax rate must be computed at 25% instead of 30%.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2010-11, noting that AO failed to verify agricultural income and bank deposits properly. CIT(A) also overlooked key evidence. The case is remitted for fresh assessment to ensure proper scrutiny.
Tribunal held that CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal despite Supreme Court–mandated limitation extensions. COVID-19–related delays must be liberally condoned when reasonable cause is shown.
The Tribunal held that audited separate books proved correct profits, making the AO’s proportionate estimation unsustainable. 80P deduction cannot be reduced when business-wise accounts are properly maintained.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to challenge both the reopening notice u/s 148 and the addition of ₹2.25 Cr. NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal was found inappropriate in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned a 27-day delay after accepting the assessee’s affidavit explaining non-intentional default and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the first appeal ex parte without addressing merits. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with full opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal accepted that the delay arose from an inadvertent error by the assessee’s prior tax consultant during e-filing. It ruled that such a bona fide mistake should not deprive the taxpayer of statutory appellate remedies. All issues were remanded for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
