Agra ITAT remands A.Y. 2018-19 bogus sales addition case to CIT(A), holding ex parte dismissal without merits discussion violates Section 250(6) and natural justice.
The ITAT ruled that tax authorities cannot deny the S.115BAB benefit after a detailed S.143(3) scrutiny order confirms the assessee as a manufacturer. The judgment emphasizes procedural consistency, overturning the CPC and CIT(A) orders.
The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo assessment to verify the reporting of cash deposits made during demonetisation under the assessee’s second PAN, citing a lack of proper opportunity for hearing.
The ITAT Agra set aside an ex-parte order dismissing a tax appeal, ruling that the CIT(A) must adhere to Section 250(6) by providing a reasoned order on the merits of the additions, even if the assessee is non-cooperative.
The Kerala High Court, in Poovachal Rural Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs JCIT, directed the Faceless Assessment Centre to use the Verification Unit for physical examination of a co-operative society’s voluminous cash book, acknowledging the difficulty of complete online submission.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored a case where the CIT(A) upheld a major loss disallowance stemming from client code modification (CCM) without proper hearing. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) failed to consider that the addition was based on unsubstantiated claims from a report, directing a fresh hearing to examine evidence of genuine trading.
ITAT Raipur set aside the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed before the 01.06.2015 amendment to Section 200A. Following the Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that in the absence of an enabling provision for computation, the levy of a late fee for the period before that date is unenforceable.
ITAT Rajkot confirmed that for a small trader opting for Section 44AD, the presumptive income covers the cash deposits related to the business cycle, making any separate addition for unexplained money (Section 69A) unjustifiable. The entire addition was deleted as the tax authorities acted on mere suspicion without bringing any contrary evidence to disprove the business nature of the deposits.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the revisionary order, finding the PCITs basis—that no supporting documents for the share LTCG were on record—was factually incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the AO had taken a plausible view after due inquiry, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to substitute his own view for the AOs.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred by blindly relying on NMS data to make a ₹1.23 crore addition for unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the registered sale deed proved the actual consideration was only ₹30 lakh (higher than the circle rate), the addition was deemed baseless and deleted in full.
