The Karnataka High Court set aside a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
Upholding the sanctity of concluded proceedings, the Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge, holding that the Checkmate Services judgment on PF/ESI contributions cannot retroactively invalidate a prior ITAT order. The key takeaway is that the ITAT’s power under Section 254(2) is limited, and a later change in law is not a ground to disturb a settled matter.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, affirming that the ITAT correctly refused to rectify its concluded order using the later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services. The ruling emphasizes that Section 254(2) is only for mistakes apparent from the record, and a subsequent change in law cannot reopen a finalized judicial adjudication.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
The Supreme Court clarified that a minor, on attaining majority, does not need to file a formal suit to cancel a guardian’s unauthorized sale of their property. The act of the former minor executing a fresh sale deed is sufficient conduct to legally repudiate the voidable transaction, making the subsequent sale valid.
The Pune ITAT quashed a Section 263 revision, holding that interest earned by a credit society from deposits in co-operative banks qualifies for the Section 80P deduction as part of business income. The ruling affirms that the AO’s acceptance of the claim, being a plausible view based on precedents, cannot be set aside merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
The ITAT Mumbai restored a long-term capital gains case to the AO to freshly verify additional documents, including BMC certificates, submitted to substantiate a Rs.1.41 crore claim for cost of improvement on a property sale. The Tribunal acknowledged that BMC and architect records can decisively corroborate construction claims on old properties, overriding the prior technical rejection.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
ITAT Chennai found it impermissible for the Department to levy a S 271B penalty after accepting the assessee’s income as commission business in the scrutiny assessment. The key takeaway is that the Department cannot take a divergent stand on the nature of receipts (commission vs. turnover) in penalty proceedings.
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
