Issues: Whether additions of Rs. 2,56,60,000 (Rs. 2,43,00,000 + Rs. 13,60,000) made on account of alleged accommodation entries/unexplained receipts and consequential interest/penalty can be sustained.

Analysis: The decision applies the legal framework that the assessee bears the onus to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties and transactions relied upon to explain receipts. Inquiries conducted under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and physical verification by the investigation wing that produced no responses or corroborative evidence are material for evaluating the transactions. Ledger entries and PAN details alone were not held sufficient to discharge that onus. Where the assessee failed to substantiate sale-of-shares claimed as the source of receipts and summoned parties did not respond, the Assessing Officer resorted to best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The first appellate authority upheld these findings on the record, and the appellate tribunal concurred with the conclusion that the three essential factors-identity, genuineness and creditworthiness-were not established by the assessee.

Conclusion: Additions of Rs. 2,56,60,000 on account of unexplained/accommodation entries and consequential interest and penalty are sustained; outcome is in favour of the revenue.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 was barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The notice under section 148 was issued on 28.07.2022 after the matter had moved to the new reassessment regime following the earlier show-cause notice under section 148A(b). On the facts recorded, the surviving period for further action had expired, and the notice ought to have been issued within the limited time available. The decision also proceeds on the footing that the relaxation under TOLA did not apply to Assessment Year 2015-16, and therefore the extended time could not save the impugned notice. In that situation, the notice was found to be beyond limitation and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice under section 148 was barred by limitation and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded, and the reassessment proceedings based on the impugned notice did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory time limit for reassessment has expired and the transitional relaxation under TOLA is inapplicable to the relevant assessment year, a notice issued beyond limitation is void and cannot sustain reassessment proceedings.

Issues: Whether the amount of Rs. 2,00,38,060/- received by the assessee from M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited is an accommodation entry liable to be added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or is genuine sale consideration already offered to tax.

Analysis: The Department reopened assessment under section 148 and treated the receipt as an accommodation entry based on information from the Investigation Wing about widespread cash deposits and transfers through the Society. The assessee furnished contemporaneous records including sales invoices, GST/VAT documentation, proof of goods dispatched, banking credits, and confirmations showing the amounts were recorded as sale proceeds in audited books and returned income. The assessing officer disbelieved the documents and made additions without conducting independent enquiries to verify the genuineness of the sales or issuing summons to the Society; the first appellate authority accepted the documentary evidence and noted absence of enquiries by the Revenue. The Tribunal examined whether the Revenue discharged the onus of proving that receipts were not genuine sale consideration and found that the Revenue did not negate the evidence filed by the assessee nor establish the receipts to be accommodation entries; the assessee was not required to prove sources of the Society's funds which was outside its control, and making an addition when the receipt is through banking channels and already offered to tax would amount to double taxation.

Conclusion: The receipt of Rs. 2,00,38,060/- is not an accommodation entry and is to be treated as genuine sale consideration; the addition under section 68 is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether interest paid on late payment of value added tax (VAT) is a deductible business expenditure (compensatory in nature) under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2014-15.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether interest on VAT arrears falls within the category of expenditure "wholly and exclusively" incurred for the purpose of business and assessed the relevance of authoritative decisions addressing the compensatory versus penal character of interest on arrears of tax. The Tribunal considered the sequence of judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lachmandas Mathuradas vs. CIT, and compared those authorities with decisions treating interest under section 201(1A) as non-deductible. The Tribunal evaluated the applicability of those precedents to interest on VAT arrears and the factual finding that the assessee had debited the interest to the Profit and Loss Account.

Conclusion: Issue (i): In favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that interest on VAT arrears is compensatory in nature and therefore allowable as a business expenditure; the disallowance of Rs. 4,92,606/- is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the amount.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant deduction for the interest on VAT arrears, giving effect to the Tribunal's conclusion that such interest is compensatory and deductible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the interest on arrears of tax is held to be compensatory rather than penal by binding precedent, such interest may qualify as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business and is allowable as a deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether an order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the name of an entity that ceased to exist on amalgamation is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed in the name of an amalgamated company which ceased to exist with effect from the appointed date as evidenced by the NCLT amalgamation order. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 confers revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an assessment order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue; however, an order issued in the name of a non-existent entity constitutes a substantive illegality. Binding precedent establishes that revision or assessment orders in the name of an entity that has ceased to exist are void ab initio. Applying these principles to the facts, the impugned revision order issued in the name of the amalgamated company is void on account of the cessation of the issuing entity's legal existence.

Conclusion: The order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the name of the amalgamated (non-existent) entity is void ab initio and is quashed; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 14,74,000 under Section 69 as unexplained investment is sustainable; (ii) Whether the addition of Rs. 3,37,000 as alleged on-money payment is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of Rs. 14,74,000 sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 69 is justified.

Analysis: The total consideration for the property was Rs. 57,24,000, of which Rs. 42,50,000 was substantiated by a housing loan accepted on record. The balance Rs. 14,74,000 was claimed to have been paid from the spouse's savings with bank statements, cheque references and supporting documents placed before the CIT(A). The identical transaction and source of funds were examined in the spouse's assessment for the same assessment year and accepted without making any addition. No adverse material was produced to disprove the documentary trail furnished in the assessee's case.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 14,74,000 under Section 69 is deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 3,37,000 as alleged on-money payment is justified.

Analysis: No seized document, statement, or corroborative evidence was produced linking the assessee to any cash payment of Rs. 3,37,000. The allegation appears to rest on general information relating to the builder group without establishing a specific nexus with the assessee. The same allegation was not sustained in the spouse's assessment.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 3,37,000 as on-money is deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the additions of Rs. 14,74,000 and Rs. 3,37,000 are deleted, resulting in disposal of the appeal in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition based on general information or material not specifically linked to the assessee cannot be sustained in the absence of independent, cogent corroborative evidence; where identical transactions and sources are accepted in the hands of a co-owner for the same assessment year and no adverse material disproves the documentary trail, sustaining an addition would be inconsistent and is not permissible.

Issues: Whether the addition made towards alleged cash component in the purchase of a shop, based on a pen drive, Excel sheets and third-party statements, could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material directly linking the assessee and without providing cross-examination of the witnesses relied upon.

Analysis: The addition was founded on material recovered in a search from a third party and on statements of persons connected with the group, but no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the assessee was found. The assessee denied having made any cash payment. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not produce any independent corroborative material to connect the assessee with the alleged on-money payment and also did not afford an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition. In such a situation, reliance only on third-party material and statements, without corroboration and confrontation, was held to be insufficient to justify the addition.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 42,60,406/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for purchase of shares of a penny stock can be upheld where the assessee produced demat records, bank statements and contract notes showing purchases through recognised brokers.

Analysis: The reopening of assessment was on the basis of information about trading in a penny scrip and the AO made addition under section 69 treating the investment as unexplained. The assessee furnished demat account statements, bank statements, purchase contract notes and written submissions before the authorities showing acquisition through recognised brokers and payments through the banking channel, including partial funding by sale of other shares. No adverse material or cogent evidence was produced by the revenue to contradict these documents. Once the assessee discharged the primary onus by producing documentary evidence of source and banking channel payments, the revenue was required to bring specific contrary evidence or make further inquiries before sustaining an addition as unexplained investment. The lower authorities relied on suspicion arising from the nature of the scrip and investigatory information without recording specific findings negativing the documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 42,60,406/- under section 69 is not sustainable; the assessee's explanation supported by demat records, bank statements and contract notes satisfactorily explains the investment and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the adjustment made by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act could be sustained without prior intimation/show cause notice to the assessee; (ii) Whether, on merits, the amount of Rs. 2,88,06,410/- representing recovered bad debts was chargeable as additional income where the assessee had credited the recovery to profit and loss account.

Issue (i): Whether the CPC could make the adjustment under section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee.

Analysis: The statutory provisos to the processing provision require that no adjustment under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a) be made unless an intimation proposing such adjustment is given to the assessee and any response so received is considered. The factual record does not demonstrate that the CPC issued the requisite prior intimation or afforded the assessee an opportunity to respond before making the adjustment.

Conclusion: The adjustment made by the CPC without prior intimation cannot be sustained; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the recovered amount of Rs. 2,88,06,410/- was properly chargeable as an additional income on merits despite the assessee having credited it to the profit and loss account.

Analysis: The assessee produced the financial statement schedules showing recognition of bad debt recovery in the profit and loss account and the audit report corroborating such recognition. The reconciliation of Schedule 14 and Schedule 17 demonstrates the recovery's accounting treatment. The Department has not established any contrary position on the record.

Conclusion: The recovered amount was already recognized and offered as income in the profit and loss account; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both the procedural defect (absence of prior intimation) and the merits (recognition of recovery in profit and loss account) support deletion of the adjustment and dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is invalid unless the statutory proviso requiring prior intimation and consideration of the assessee's response is complied with; where an amount of recovery is already recognized in the profit and loss account, a duplicate addition is not justified.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should uphold the deletion of an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treating loans of Rs. 60,00,000 as bogus, having regard to documentary evidence produced by the assessee and a statement recorded under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 implicating the creditors as accommodation-entry providers.

Analysis: The issue turns on whether the assessee discharged the primary onus to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the loans despite a statement recorded under section 131 alleging the creditors provided accommodation entries. Relevant considerations include documentary evidence of banking transactions, confirmations, income-tax returns and audited financial statements of the creditors, records of repayments and interest with tax deduction at source, and absence of independent corroborative material from the Revenue contradicting those documents. Where an addition under section 68 is founded solely on a statement recorded under section 131 without independent or cogent corroboration, the statement alone is insufficient to sustain an addition if the assessee produces credible contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition under section 68 is upheld; the Revenue's grounds attacking the learned CIT(A)'s findings are dismissed and the appeal is dismissed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot by itself justify an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the assessee has produced adequate and unchallenged documentary evidence establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, absent independent corroborative evidence to the contrary.

Issues: Whether the additions of Rs. 5,32,280 made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (comprising Rs. 1,00,000 cash deposit and Rs. 4,32,280 towards stamp duty and registration charges) are sustainable for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Analysis: The assessment was reopened under Section 148 and draft additions were confirmed by the DRP under Section 144C(13) by treating certain payments as unexplained investments under Section 69. For the cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 the assessee produced bank statements and evidence of prior withdrawals from his NRE account which established the availability and source of cash; these records were accepted to connect the cash deposit to explained funds. For the stamp duty of Rs. 4,00,000 and registration charges of Rs. 32,280 the assessee produced a bank challan for stamp duty, a sub-registrar receipt for registration charges, and a notarized affidavit from the developer corroborated by registered documents of May 2015; these contemporaneous documents were accepted as adequately explaining that such amounts formed part of the payments made to the developer. The Tribunal directed deletion of the impugned additions on the basis of the documentary proof and corroboration placed on record.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,00,000 (cash deposit) is deleted. The addition of Rs. 4,32,280 (stamp duty and registration charges) is deleted. The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice dated 28/07/2022 issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (new regime) after the expiry of three years was validly sanctioned in accordance with section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and related provisions, and if non-compliant, whether the reassessment proceedings must be quashed.

Analysis: The new regime introduced by Finance Act, 2021 requires prior sanction by the specified authority under section 151 before an assessing officer may pass an order under section 148A(d) or issue a notice under section 148; the level of the specified authority is linked to the time elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year and to the amount of income alleged to have escaped assessment. For notices issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year where the escaped income is less than the statutory threshold, the specified authority under section 151(ii)(b) must be of a higher rank (Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General). The statutory time limits are to be read with the temporal relief provided by TOLA where applicable. In the present facts, the income alleged to have escaped assessment was Rs. 37,76,422/-, the notice under the new regime was issued beyond three years, and approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner rather than by one of the higher authorities specified under section 151(ii)(b); therefore the statutory sanction requirement was not satisfied and the notice is time-barred and without valid sanction.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice dated 28/07/2022 issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law for non-compliance with section 151; the notice and the consequent reassessment proceedings are quashed and set aside. The legal grounds in the cross-objection are allowed and the Revenue appeal becomes infructuous; the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection is partly allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether allotment letters (with part payments) qualify as an "agreement" under section 43CA(3)/(4) for substituting stamp duty value as on agreement date and whether additions under section 43CA should be recomputed or remitted for verification; (ii) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D and its impact on book profit under section 115JB is sustainable where no exempt income was earned; (iii) Whether claim of deferred tax requires adjudication or verification by the Assessing Officer.

Issue (i): Whether allotment letters together with part consideration received through banking channels constitute an agreement for the purposes of section 43CA(3)/(4) and whether the matter requires remand for verification of stamp duty values and part payments.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the record, the allotment letters, bank statements and ready reckoner rates, and considered precedent holdings that allotment letters may be treated as agreements where part consideration was received by prescribed banking modes on or before the allotment date. The Tribunal found that lower authorities had rejected allotment letters as not final and therefore applied a narrow interpretation. Given the additional evidence filed (bank statements and SDV ready reckoner rates) and relevant precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the factual questions of receipt of part payment and comparison of sale consideration with stamp duty values as on allotment date require verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue under section 43CA is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited adjudication: (1) verification of receipt of part consideration through banking channels on or before the allotment date; and (2) comparison of actual sale consideration with stamp duty valuation prevailing on the allotment date. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes as set aside to the AO.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D and the corresponding addition in computation of book profit under section 115JB can be sustained where the assessee did not earn any exempt income in the relevant year.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee expressly stated that no exempt income was earned for the relevant year and that this factual position was not controverted by the Revenue. The Tribunal applied binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court and the Special Bench authority on computation of book profit under section 115JB, which hold that in absence of exempt income no disallowance under section 14A is warranted and that certain 14A adjustments are not to be added back in book profit under section 115JB.

Conclusion: Disallowances under section 14A read with Rule 8D are deleted and the corresponding additions to book profit under section 115JB are disallowed. Grounds on section 14A and related 115JB issues are allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim relating to deferred tax requires adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The parties agreed that the deferred tax point involves verification of claimed figures and supporting documents. The Tribunal considered this a matter suitable for verification and factual adjudication at the assessment level.

Conclusion: The deferred tax issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allows the appeals: issues under section 43CA are remitted to the Assessing Officer for limited verification; disallowances under section 14A (and related additions under section 115JB) are deleted in favour of the assessee; the deferred tax claim is remitted for verification. The appeals are therefore partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: An allotment letter accompanied by receipt of part consideration through prescribed banking channels on or before the allotment date can be treated as an "agreement" for the purposes of section 43CA(3)/(4), and factual verification of part payments and stamp duty values as on the allotment date is necessary before making additions; in absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A (or corresponding add-back under section 115JB) is permissible.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be levied in respect of additions/disallowances made under the normal provisions of the Act where the tax liability has been finally determined under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (minimum alternate tax) for assessment years prior to 01.04.2016.

Analysis: The assessment records show tax liability for the relevant assessment years was computed and fixed under the deeming provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered the legal position established by the decision in Nalwa Sons (as accepted by the CBDT) and the CBDT Circular dated 31-12-2015 which clarifies that prior to 01.04.2016, where tax payable under normal provisions is less than tax payable under section 115JB, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted in respect of additions/disallowances made under normal provisions. The substituted Explanation 4 to section 271(1) operates prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and does not alter the pre-2016 position. The Revenue did not controvert the effect of the CBDT Circular on the facts of these cases.

Conclusion: Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of additions/disallowances made under the normal provisions is deleted for the assessment years where tax was finally determined under section 115JB; appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs.14,39,648 under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating cash deposited during demonetisation as unexplained income, was sustainable; (ii) Whether the set off of current year losses of Rs.2,05,053 against other income was correctly disallowed; (iii) Whether the assessment completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid for breach of principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the cash deposits of Rs.14,39,648 during the demonetisation period could be treated as unexplained income under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The AO recorded cash deposits in specified bank notes during the demonetisation period and issued statutory notices; the assessee failed to respond or furnish any source or explanation. The AO, after obtaining bank information under section 133(6), treated the deposits as belonging to the assessee and assessed them under section 69A and taxed under section 115BBE. The learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal examined the record of notices and opportunities afforded and found no material filed by the assessee to rebut the finding of unexplained deposits.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the set off of current year losses of Rs.2,05,053 against other income was rightly disallowed by the AO.

Analysis: The assessee claimed set off of current year losses but did not produce supporting details or explanations despite statutory notices and opportunities before the AO and CIT(A). In absence of any supporting material, the claim of set off could not be verified and was rejected by the AO and sustained by the appellate authorities.

Conclusion: The disallowance of set off of current year losses of Rs.2,05,053 is affirmed against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid for non-compliance with principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The record shows issuance and service of statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) and multiple hearing opportunities at the CIT(A) stage. The assessee did not respond at any stage and did not seek adjournment. The Tribunal noted that adequate opportunity was afforded and that the default lay with the assessee.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment/order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not suffer from breach of natural justice and is valid.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds and confirmed the assessment additions and disallowance, resulting in dismissal of the appeal; the decision upholds the tax treatment of unexplained cash deposits and the rejection of unsubstantiated loss set off where the assessee fails to furnish explanations or documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee deposits cash in bank during the demonetisation period and fails to furnish any acceptable explanation or documentary evidence despite statutory notices and opportunities, the assessing authority may treat such deposits as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and tax it under section 115BBE, and claims of set off lacking supporting material may be disallowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction, in reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to compute and assess deemed income under section 115JB when the AO accepted the returned income and made no additions on the grounds forming the basis for reopening.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated on the basis that certain payments to related parties lacked substantiation and had escaped assessment. During reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income and made no adverse additions on that issue. Despite acceptance, the Assessing Officer computed book profit under section 115JB and arrived at a MAT demand. The authorities relied upon establish that section 147 permits assessment or reassessment of the income which formed the basis of the formation of belief and permits assessment of other income only if such other income comes to the AO's notice in the course of proceedings assessing that originally believed-to-have-escaped income. If the AO, after issuing notice under section 148, concludes that the income forming the basis of the belief has not escaped assessment, the AO cannot independently assess some other income without issuing a fresh notice under section 148 directed to that income.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction by computing and assessing deemed income under section 115JB in the reassessment proceedings which had been initiated to examine other payments; the computation of book profit under section 115JB is quashed and the assessee is granted relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the MAT computation under section 115JB made in the reassessment is set aside as beyond the scope of the reassessment initiated under section 147.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment notice under section 148 is issued for specific escaped income and the Assessing Officer, during reassessment, accepts that the originally alleged escaped income has not escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to assess other income (including computation under section 115JB) without issuing a fresh valid notice under section 148 directed to that other income.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order confirming denial of input tax credit and related demands is sustainable in view of the statutory insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6) and whether the writ petition merits interference by remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the assessment confirming reversal of input tax credit and consequent demands rested solely on belated availment under Section 16(4), and whether the subsequent statutory provisions (Sections 16(5) and 16(6)) require reevaluation of the taxpayer's entitlement. The Court considered the scope of the earlier order-in-original and the necessity of allowing the authority to re-examine entitlement on merits while preserving the consequence of belated availment. The Court also addressed procedural fairness by requiring filing of a proper reply and payment of amounts due for delayed return filing before fresh adjudication, and by conditioning lifting of bank attachment on compliance and absence of other arrears.

Conclusion: The matter is remitted to the tax authority for fresh adjudication of entitlement to input tax credit (excepting the issue of belated availment), subject to the petitioner filing a reply within 30 days and paying amounts due for late return filing within the same period; bank attachment is lifted conditionally. A fresh order on merits shall be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax authority's confirmation of denial of input tax credit is based on belated availment and statutory amendments alter the entitlement framework, judicial interference by remand for fresh consideration is appropriate to enable the authority to apply the amended statutory provisions while preserving procedural safeguards.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and relying solely on notices uploaded on the GST portal was vitiated and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The Court examined the material showing that show cause notices were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner did not receive any personal notice and no personal hearing was afforded prior to passing the assessment order. The Court noted that although uploading on the portal is a valid mode of service, where there is no response from the addressee the officer must apply mind and explore other modes of service prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act (for example RPAD) to effectuate effective service rather than merely completing a formal requirement. Having regard to the absence of opportunity of personal hearing and the requirement to ensure effective service, the Court considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration, subject to conditions to balance the parties' interests.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and summary order dated 19.12.2024 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration on condition that the assessee pays 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, after which the assessee may file reply and the authority shall afford a 14 days clear notice fixing personal hearing and decide the matter on merits.

Issues: Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of long term capital gain where the new residential flat was booked by agreement on 23-05-2012 but possession was taken on 07-01-2015 (within two years of transfer of old property on 28-10-2013).

Analysis: The new property was an under-construction flat with consideration payable by instalments linked to construction. The agreement of booking dated 23-05-2012 recorded initial payment only and the remaining payments were made progressively; construction completed on 26-12-2014 and possession was handed over on 07-01-2015 after final payment. Section 54 requires purchase of a residential house within the statutory period and the entitlement to exemption depends on discharge of the purchase obligation and acquisition of the right to use and enjoy the completed house. Precedent treating possession and payment of full consideration on completion as the relevant date for claiming exemption for under-construction properties was applied.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowed as the date of purchase for the purposes of section 54 is 07-01-2015 (possession after final payment), which falls within two years from the date of transfer of the original asset; appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to disbursement of interest on the refund already deposited in Court notwithstanding an inter se dispute between State and Central authorities regarding liability to pay such interest.

Analysis: The Court noted that the respondent has deposited the amount of interest on refund pursuant to earlier orders. The legal framework invoked includes Rule 94 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and the definition of "proper officer" under Section 2(91) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which formed the basis of the respondents' inter se dispute over which authority is liable to pay the interest. The Court observed that the existence of an inter se dispute between authorities does not negate the petitioner's substantive entitlement to interest on the refund and that withholding payment from the petitioner on account of unresolved inter se allocation of liability would cause prejudice to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to the disbursement of the interest on the refund; the Registry is directed to verify and disburse the deposited interest amount to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where interest on a refund has been found due and deposited, the entitlement of the refund recipient to receive the interest cannot be withheld on account of an unresolved inter se dispute between tax authorities regarding which authority bears the liability.