The Tribunal ruled that once cash sales are recorded in books and included in declared turnover, separate addition of deposits would result in double taxation. The entire ₹4.74 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that Goetze (India) does not bar appellate authorities from entertaining new claims. Where all facts are on record, the claim must be examined on merits.
ITAT held that quasi-judicial assessments must be based on facts, not conjecture. Estimation of expenses is impermissible where no defect in vouchers or accounts is established.
The Tribunal held that after expiry of three years, sanction must be obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(ii). Since approval was taken from PCIT instead of PCCIT, the reopening was invalid.
Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal ruled that additions sustained purely on profit estimation cannot trigger penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Clear evidence of concealment is mandatory for penalty.
The Court held that acknowledgment of debt in signed balance sheets validly extends limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the Section 7 application was filed within the extended period, CIRP was rightly admitted.
The Tribunal held that where the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty value is less than 10%, no addition can be made. The 10% tolerance band was treated as retrospective and applicable to AY 2017–18.
The ruling reiterates that adjudication based on incorrect material vitiates the entire order. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration of facts specific to the assessee.
While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification. Other legal grounds were treated as academic.
The ruling clarifies that reopening for AY 2016–17 must comply with the correct sanctioning authority requirement. Non-compliance invalidates the notice and all consequential actions under the Act.
