#Assessment Order

The tribunal held that a section 148 notice dated 12-April-2023 was time-barred under section 149(1)(a) because the income escaping assessment was below Rs 50 lakh, and therefore quashed the assessment disallowing the claimed deduction under 80GGC for a bogus political donation. The ruling underscores that reopening notices beyond three years are invalid when the escaped income does not exceed the Rs 50 lakh threshold.

The ITAT Surat Bench set aside assessment orders for AY 2011-14 because the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to obtain the mandatory prior approval of the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D. The ruling makes it clear that any assessment under special provisions is invalid without such approval, impacting both taxpayers and revenue officials.

An assessment order issued under Section 148 after the assessee’s death is deemed void from the outset, rendering the notice ineffective. This ruling bars revenue authorities from reopening assessments of deceased taxpayers without proper procedural basis, protecting legal heirs from unwarranted tax demands.

ITAT Pune ruled that income tax assessments are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide the assessee with third-party replies obtained under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that non-disclosure violates principles of natural justice, setting aside the assessment order and reinforcing procedural fairness in tax proceedings.

The ITAT Bangalore has ruled that an Assessing Officer is legally bound to implement Dispute Resolution Panel directions under Section 144C(13) regardless of whether the Transfer Pricing Officer has finalized their order. This clarifies that statutory compliance with DRP mandates cannot be delayed or negated due to procedural lags in transfer pricing assessments, reinforcing taxpayer rights and administrative accountability in complex tax disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke Section 263 to revise an assessment order merely because he disagrees with the Assessing Officer's plausible interpretation of income utilization. The revisionary power is only valid if the original order suffers from a legal error, failure to inquire, or non-application of mind - not because the view was suboptimal or inconvenient to the revenue.

ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside a revision order under Section 263, ruling that mere disagreement with the Assessing Officer’s findings does not justify revision if the AO conducted thorough inquiries. The decision reinforces that revisional powers cannot be exercised on a change of opinion alone, safeguarding assessees from arbitrary reassessments.

The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed a Rs. 59.97 lakh addition under Section 68 because the Assessing Officer failed to produce any statement under Section 132(4) or verifiable transaction records to prove the alleged accommodation entry. This reinforces that mere suspicion or third-party allegations, without procedural compliance, cannot sustain a tax addition - a critical safeguard for taxpayers facing speculative assessments.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that any assessment order issued under e-proceedings must be digitally signed as mandated by CBDT Instruction 1/2018; manual signatures render the order legally void. This sets a binding precedent for all tax officers conducting online assessments, reinforcing procedural integrity in digital tax administration and protecting assessees from invalid orders.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has struck down a single GST assessment order spanning four financial years, holding that each tax period requires a separate proceeding under Sections 73 and 74. This ruling protects businesses from coercive, bundled assessments and reinforces the statutory requirement for year-specific scrutiny, impacting all taxpayers subject to retrospective GST audits.

ITAT Dehradun rules that revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked merely to substitute the Assessing Officer's opinion unless a material error is established. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, emphasizing that the AO's acceptance of loan details after due inquiry cannot be overturned without evidence of prejudice to revenue or procedural lapse.

The ITAT Delhi holds that opting for VSV Scheme 2020 on penalty appeal does not imply settlement of assessment appeal; procedural clarity mandated for taxpayers.