ITAT Chennai held that reopening an assessment after four years based on issues already examined during scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. The key takeaway is that reassessment cannot be used as a tool to review a concluded assessment without fresh tangible material.
The Assessing Officer examined the audited books, balance sheet, and supporting records but did not identify any discrepancy or reject the accounts. ITAT held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 115BBE was unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the taxpayer had furnished complete documentary evidence of purchase and sale of shares. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment based solely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry is invalid. The ruling emphasizes that borrowed satisfaction cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal ruled that statements of builder group officials, without corroborative evidence against the purchaser, cannot form the sole basis for addition. The decision reinforces the principle that third-party statements must be independently verified.
The Tribunal accepted that the taxpayer was pursuing rectification remedies and therefore condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The key takeaway is that genuine efforts to resolve disputes through alternative legal remedies can justify delay condonation.
The Revenue sought to levy penalty despite accepting the revised income declared by the assessee. ITAT held that accepted disclosures do not automatically amount to misreporting and cannot justify penalty under Section 270A.
The ITAT held that reassessment cannot be sustained when additions are ultimately made on issues not mentioned in the recorded reasons for reopening. The AO’s jurisdiction failed because no valid addition survived on the original escapement issue.
Tribunal held that purchase of land outside the prescribed period does not automatically disqualify exemption on construction of a residential house. Construction expenditure incurred within the time limit prescribed under Section 54 may still qualify for deduction. The issue was remanded for verification of actual construction costs.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
