#section 144

ITAT Surat condoned a 578-day delay in appeal filing, holding that an assessee's residence abroad constitutes 'sufficient cause' for non-compliance with tax notices. The Tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) and remanded the ex-parte assessment of NRE account credits, reinforcing leniency for NRIs in tax proceedings.

ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act for failure to dispose of the taxpayer’s objections via a speaking order. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s GKN Driveshafts precedent, mandating strict procedural compliance in reassessment cases, impacting all taxpayers facing arbitrary reopening of assessments.

ITAT Delhi sets aside an ex-parte assessment order for failing to provide the assessee a genuine chance to respond to notices, emphasizing that procedural fairness under natural justice is non-negotiable even in tax proceedings. The ruling mandates de-novo proceedings, reinforcing that mechanical compliance with notice issuance does not suffice to uphold an ex-parte order.

ITAT Bangalore condoned a 114-day delay in filing an appeal and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that ex-parte additions under Section 144 without considering the assessee’s health constraints violate procedural fairness. The ruling underscores the assessee’s right to submit evidence and mandates fresh adjudication where unexplained income additions were made without proper opportunity.

When an assessee furnishes documents and actively participates in reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer cannot bypass procedural safeguards by treating the case as a best judgment assessment under Section 144. This ruling reinforces that fair opportunity to be heard is non-negotiable, even in high-risk tax investigations, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary assessments.

ITAT Delhi sets aside income tax assessment under Section 144, ruling that estimation of income based on unverified subscriber data violates statutory requirements. The decision reinforces that tax authorities must conduct thorough verification before resorting to best judgment assessment, impacting cable operators and similar service providers facing tax disputes.