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.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be based on the same material already examined during a completed Section 153C assessment. The ruling emphasizes that fresh tangible material is necessary for valid reopening.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note failed to identify the documents allegedly found during the search or their connection to the taxpayer. The ruling confirms that vague references to seized material are insufficient.
