Demonetisation-era jewellery sales were questioned as invoices mentioned buyers only as cash. The ITAT remanded the matter to verify buyer identity, stock linkage, and genuineness before sustaining any addition.
Though some estimation was justified after rejection of books, a flat 1% rate was found arbitrary. The ITAT reduced the estimate to 0.50% aligned with prior years’ margins.
Cash deposited during demonetisation was explained as coming from income surrendered and accepted in an earlier survey. The Tribunal held that disbelief about holding cash cannot replace evidence and deleted the section 69A addition.
The ITAT accepted that repayment strengthens genuineness under section 68. Unrepaid loans with missing financial details were sent back for fresh verification.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings where the section 148 notice and section 148A(d) order were issued by the JAO instead of the FAO. It reaffirmed that post-notification violations of the faceless scheme cannot be cured by participation or waiver.
The appellate order was passed ex-parte under the faceless system. The Tribunal restored the appeal, directing the authority to grant three effective opportunities to the taxpayer.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal accepted possible redeposit of earlier withdrawals and restricted the addition to ₹2 lakh.
The Revenue taxed entire demonetisation cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A with section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that cash sales are possible in retail trade and restricted the addition to a 10% GP estimate.
The ITAT Delhi held that rental income already assessed in the hands of an HUF cannot be taxed again in the individual’s assessment. The addition was deleted to prevent double taxation of the same income.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that money received from a husband qualifies as an exempt gift from a relative under section 56. Such receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income in reassessment proceedings.
