The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)’s pragmatic decision to restrict an addition of ₹8.21 crore for unexplained cash deposits to a 5% profit margin on the total deposits. This estimation was deemed reasonable, considering the nature of the assessee’s pottery trading business where full documentation was absent, balancing commercial reality with revenue protection.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed a revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the Assessing Officer’s detailed scrutiny into the Rs.124 crore business loss was adequate.2 The Tribunal confirmed that when an AO conducts proper inquiries, the order is not “erroneous” and cannot be subject to revision merely because the PCIT disagrees.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of Rs.85.05 lakh, ruling that Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of M/s Pine Animation Ltd. shares was genuine. The Tribunal held that demat-backed transactions through banking channels cannot be rejected merely based on a general Investigation Wing report.
The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was unsustainable because it failed to cite any specific instance where the AO neglected to verify the alleged fictitious loan transaction. For Section 263 to apply, both the error in the assessment and prejudice to the revenue must be proven, which the PCIT did not demonstrate.
The ITAT Dehradun quashed an entire reassessment, holding the mandatory notice under Section 148 invalid because it was sent to an old postal address and a wrong email ID. The ruling confirms that non-service of the foundational notice renders all subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad invalidated the entire Section 143(1) intimation because the CPC made an adjustment regarding the leave encashment exemption without issuing the mandatory prior notice. The Tribunal held that the failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) is a violation of audi alteram partem and renders the proceedings invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in deleting ₹10.64 crore addition for bogus purchases without obtaining Assessing Officer’s comments on additional evidence. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in compliance with Rule 46A.
The ITAT Dehradun ruled that deposits in employees’ bank accounts, even when handled by the business, cannot be treated as the employer’s unexplained income under Section 69A. Following a precedent in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal confirmed these amounts belong to the employees.
