The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a general survey admission by the seller cannot justify additions in every buyers case. Documentary proof of purchases and sales outweighed unsupported allegations.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under Section 148 is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the entire reassessment and additions were quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that once reassessment is validly initiated, the Assessing Officer can tax any escaped income discovered later. Additions need not relate to the original reopening reason.
The Tribunal held that absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) vitiates the entire reassessment. Participation by the assessee cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal upheld that quarry expenses represented the cost of procuring raw material under a valid business arrangement. Denying such costs would lead to unrealistic profit margins.
The Tribunal ruled that an issue conclusively settled by ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court cannot be revisited by the AO under Section 254. Deduction under Section 10A was ordered to be allowed.
The Tribunal rejected full disallowance of alleged bogus purchases and adopted a balanced approach by estimating profit at 10%. Section 68 was held to be wrongly invoked.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, AO directed to recompute book profit after allowing indexation.
Once the reassessment was quashed for jurisdictional and limitation defects, the Revenues appeal on merits became infructuous. The decision underscores the primacy of legal compliance in reassessment cases.
