Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Andaman Timber Industries, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the right to cross-examination is mandatory for any addition based on a third-party statement. Failure to grant this right nullifies the assessment order.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that cash deposits of Rs.9.37 crore made by Arvindbhai Jewellers during demonetisation were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was invalid, as there was no defect in the quantitative stock register, and suspicion alone cannot be a basis for addition.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed merely on a survey statement when the builder consistently follows the Project Completion Method. Additions of ₹19.2 crore were deleted.
$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
High Court held that reassessment notices/orders issued by the AO, rather than NFAC, are void due to jurisdictional defects. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness and statutory compliance.
Karnataka High Court sets aside reassessment order, ruling that the jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a notice and complete proceedings by bypassing the mandatory $\text{Faceless \text{ Assessment \text{ Scheme}}$ (NFAC).
The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence, including a director’s affidavit and Company Law Board (CLB) orders, as credible proof of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The case was restored, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to contest the 68 and House Property income additions.
Holding the tolerance band as a remedial measure, the Tribunal applied it retrospectively to avoid hardship where stamp duty and actual sale values differ by less than 10%.
Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
