The court set aside reassessment orders and notices as the issue was already covered by an earlier judgment. Consequential proceedings were also nullified, with other rights kept open.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the statutory sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically. Mere use of the word Approved does not show application of mind and vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that ad hoc disallowance is unsustainable when books are not rejected. Disallowance was reduced to 8% based on facts and past practice.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening was granted mechanically and without independent application of mind, as required under Section 151. An undated and non-speaking approval vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
Failure to demonstrate a dated approval under Section 151 proved fatal to the Revenue’s case. The decision underscores strict compliance in reopening assessments.
The assessment was set aside as the Revenue produced no acknowledgment of service. The ruling reiterates that service of notice is foundational to reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority has a statutory duty to decide grounds on merits and cannot dismiss them as not adjudicated for want of details. Orders violating sections 250(6) and 251(1) were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/144B is void if no notice under Section 143(2) is issued. Acting on a return filed or adopted in response to Section 148 triggers mandatory jurisdictional compliance.
The Tribunal held that extended block assessment beyond six years is invalid where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Jurisdiction under Sections 153A/153C cannot be assumed without meeting statutory limits.
Where real estate sale proceeds and donations are transparently reflected in financial statements, unexplained money provisions fail. The decision reinforces limits on Revenues powers based on conjecture.
