The Tribunal held that an appeal should not be rejected merely due to long delay when sufficient cause is shown. It ruled that technicalities cannot defeat substantial justice and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The court held that amounts credited due to a clerical RTGS error cannot be retained or recovered as tax dues when they do not belong to the account holder. Recovery provisions were ruled inapplicable, and the bank was directed to refund the money to the remitter.
The tribunal held that cash deposits were largely explained through earlier withdrawals and business receipts. Only an estimated 10% addition was sustained, and harsh taxation under section 115BBE was ruled out.
Reopenings based on assumptions, conjecture, or generalized allegations were struck down. The ruling reiterates that reasons must show tangible material, application of mind, and a live nexus with escaped income.
Where updated cash books explained the cash found and no defects were pointed out, additions under section 69A were held unsustainable. Substantiation with regular books prevailed over search-time snapshots.
The Tribunal refused to send the matter back for valuation after finding a clear statutory breach. The addition was deleted outright, reinforcing strict compliance with valuation provisions.
Adjustments made through CPC were not finally upheld where the assessee raised a valid factual plea on timing of salary payment. The ruling highlights that mechanical disallowances must give way to proper verification.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan additions after finding that the lenders identity, bank trail, and reserves were established. Low declared income alone was held insufficient to treat the credits as unexplained.
Despite non-compliance during assessment, the Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where facts showed only renewal of deposits. Ex-parte proceedings do not justify treating old FDs as unexplained investments.
The tribunal examined whether a final assessment passed after the statutory time limit was valid. It held that assessments beyond Section 153 timelines are void, even when issued under the DRP framework.
