The tribunal held that penalty for non-appearance cannot be sustained when reasonable cause exists. Ignorance of proceedings and factual circumstances justified relief.
The High Court held that once the assessee failed to explain the source, addition was justified only to the extent of cash actually seized. It ruled that the AO cannot arbitrarily add a higher amount than the proven seized sum.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot sustain addition under Section 68 without issuing notice under Section 251(2). It also noted that the AO had already accepted evidences of investors.
ITAT Mumbai held delay and ex-parte orders cannot override justice. ₹64.8 lakh addition u/s 69 set aside; case remanded for fresh examination, giving assessee opportunity to submit evidence.
ITAT condoned an 820-day delay due to a bona fide jurisdictional mistake. It held that SBN deposits from members cannot be treated as unexplained when the source is properly explained.
The CIT(A) upheld additions without discussing merits or legal issues. The Tribunal ruled that a speaking order is mandatory and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The reassessment notice issued within four years was wrongly quashed by applying amended law. The Tribunal restored the matter, emphasizing correct application of applicable provisions.
A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the original return submitted u/s 139(1).
The tribunal held that claiming TDS credit creates presumption of income in the assessee’s hands. The key takeaway is that TDS benefit must be explained or it becomes taxable.
The tribunal held that arbitrary estimation of agricultural income without supporting data is unsustainable. It ruled that additions cannot be made based on guesswork without evidence.
