The issue was whether the appellate authority could bypass jurisdictional objections by remanding the case. The tribunal held that legal grounds striking at jurisdiction must be adjudicated first.
The dispute arose from purchases made from vendors with weak tax profiles. The Tribunal held that vendor defaults do not justify section 69C when the assessee proves the source and recording of expenditure.
The Assessing Officer accepted multiple loan transactions but treated only one as unexplained. The tribunal held that selective rejection without consistent reasoning was unsustainable.
The Tribunal confirmed that licence fees for use of immovable property fall under house property income. It emphasized that once included in computation, the same amount cannot be added again.
The Tribunal held that a penalty order issued after the death of the assessee is void ab initio. Since notices were not served on legal heirs, the penalty under section 271AAC was set aside.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party GST information and suspicion cannot be sustained without independent investigation, restricting estimation to 1% of sales.
The Tribunal ruled that compensation and hardship allowance received during redevelopment are capital receipts and cannot be taxed as income from other sources.
Holding in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal clarified that explained capital supported by documentary proof cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The ruling clarifies that Rule 46A is not breached when additional evidence is remanded but the Assessing Officer fails to respond. Relief granted by the CIT(A) in such cases remains valid.
Whether outstanding purchase consideration can be treated as unexplained money. Addition quashed. Takeaway: Deferred payments later settled via banks with TDS cannot be taxed on suspicion.
