The Tribunal held that once the underlying Section 263 revision was set aside, the consequential assessment lost legal validity. The key takeaway: without a valid foundation, no further appellate proceedings can survive.
The addition arose from adopting registration-date valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), while the assessee produced documents showing prior rights and payments. The Tribunal held the new evidence to be material and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue afresh.
The Tribunal observed that additions forming the basis of the penalty had not yet attained finality before the first appellate authority. It therefore restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after completion of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that past years consistently allowed ESOP expenditure as revenue, and no new facts justified deviation. once an issue is settled for identical facts, consistency must be maintained.
The ruling emphasized that transfer requires full payment and handover of possession, which were absent during AY 2015-16. The Tribunal deleted the addition and held that taxing the income again would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Court set aside notices issued manually by the JAO, holding that reassessment and issuance of Section 148 notices must follow the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that the JAO has no concurrent jurisdiction.
The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit deficiency without prior notice or opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
Aseem Sehgal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern assessment years 2015–16 to 2017–18 and arise from reassessment orders issued under Sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The sole issue examined by the Tribunal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in framing reassessment under the pre-April 2021 provisions despite issuing the notice […]
The Tribunal held that once the assessee provided prima facie evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifts to the AO to make independent inquiries. Non-compliance renders additions invalid.
ITAT Surat relied on precedents (Hari Gopal, Marksans Pharma, Boparai P. Ltd.) to hold that ad-hoc or percentage-based additions do not trigger Section 271(1)(c) penalty. Appeal allowed, penalty deleted.
