AO had added ₹11,38,000/- towards the amount paid to a builder — ₹8,00,000/- by cheque & ₹3,38,000/- in cash — treating it as unexplained. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition on the ground that Assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment.
Tribunal remanded matter for a de novo assessment after noting that Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order without examining ownership and consideration details in a capital gains case.
ITAT held that funds from earlier years and IDS disclosures cannot justify cash deposits made in a later year without proper linkage or documentation. Addition under Section 68 was upheld.
Bombay High Court holds that a GST Show Cause Notice (SCN) served on an old, non-authorized email address constitutes invalid service. The SCN for FY 2020-21 was deemed prima facie time-barred, leading to a stay on the resulting order.
The ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of a ₹2.5 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessee provided full documentary proof of the loan’s identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal emphasized that once the primary onus is discharged, the AO must conduct an independent inquiry rather than relying on an unverified Investigation Wing report.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, violates natural justice. The ₹60 lakh on-money allegation was deleted.
The Assessee contested a cryptic CIT(A) order that failed to discuss documentation provided for Long Term Capital Gains and property investment sources. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the non-speaking order for de novo adjudication. This ruling reinforces the principle that every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons to ensure fairness and proper justice.
The issue was the summary confirmation of an 8% estimated income addition on a hotel business by the NFAC without conducting independent inquiry or giving reasons. The ITAT set aside the non-speaking order, emphasizing that the CIT(A)’s powers are co-terminous with the AO’s, requiring proper investigation and a reasoned decision. The key takeaway is the mandate for appellate authorities to make an independent inquiry and not just rubber-stamp the AO’s order.
Rajkot ITAT deleted an addition of ₹94.81 lakh, holding that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act is accretion to compensation, not interest taxable under Section 56(2)(viii). Since acquired land was rural agricultural land (not a capital asset), compensation, including Section 28 interest, is wholly exempt from tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that when sales and stock figures are accepted, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Only the profit element at 3% is taxable, following consistent judicial precedent.
