The ITAT Raipur restored the appeal regarding deletion of ₹15.81 crore addition, highlighting procedural lapses by CIT(A) in accepting new evidence without remand. Key takeaway: AO’s verification is crucial before deleting large additions.
The assessee showed that the ₹1.11 crore payment was an advance toward a bank-auctioned property, fully supported by bank transfers and later formalised via a registered deed. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot attract section 69. The addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot refer property valuation to the DVO if the registered valuer’s estimate is correct or higher than fair market value, overturning an inflated capital gains addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income. The AO issued a 200% penalty without identifying the statutory limb or giving reasons. Since the order lacked satisfaction and reasoning, the penalty was quashed.
ITAT held that section 263 cannot be invoked unless the PCIT pinpoints an actual error in the AO’s order; since no specific mistake was shown, the revision was invalid.
The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
The Tribunal upheld that the assessee could adopt NAV for one sale and DCF for another, as both are recognized under Rule 11UA. Since the AO failed to show any defect in the valuation reports, the substituted FMV was held invalid. The deletion of the section 50CA addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid since the original scrutiny had already examined the issue and no fresh information indicating suppression or omission was found. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion was rejected. The ruling reinforces that section 147 requires tangible new material.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained when the AO had already accepted the related cash sales as part of audited turnover. Since stocks, sales, VAT records, and cash books were undisputed, the addition amounted to double taxation. The entire addition was deleted.
