Delhi ITAT quashed ex-parte assessments under Sections 144/147/143(3) as the authorised signatory’s serious illness prevented contesting, ensuring a fair opportunity to present evidence.
ITAT Delhi dismissed an appeal where the assessee continuously absented itself, upholding additions under Section 143(3). The case reinforces that tax law protects diligent litigants, not those neglecting their rights.
Delhi ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) after finding that additional evidence was accepted without allowing AO to respond. Procedural safeguards under Rule 46A are essential, even for official records.
The Tribunal admitted an additional legal ground under Rule 11, allowing examination of the Section 148 notice on admitted facts. Since the notice was issued after the limitation period, the reassessment order and ₹3.34 crore additions were set aside.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for cash deposits from painting sales, ancestral jewellery, and customary gifts. Revenue failed to challenge the well-supported factual findings.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld ₹59.9 lakh addition from demonetisation-period cash deposits and GP estimation, confirming the rejection of unverifiable books due to abnormal sales and fraudulent stock.
ITAT ruled that cash recorded in a partner’s name during survey cannot be taxed in his hands when the amounts relate to the firm’s land sales and are recorded in the firm’s books. The key takeaway: assess income in the correct entity.
ITAT held that the obligation to receive cash was rooted in an agreement executed before the 2015 amendment to Section 269SS. Since reasonable cause existed, penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that detailed stock, sales, VAT, and bank records satisfactorily explained cash deposits of ₹2.07 crore, overturning additions made by AO and CIT(A).
ITAT Pune held that late filing of Form 10B cannot result in taxing the entire gross receipts; assessment must be made on net surplus after allowing expenses.
