ITAT Agra Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal found that the subordinate authorities needed to factually verify the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26AAB). Considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the notice was not properly served on the assessee due to an incorrect address, depriving the assessee of an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54F as the delay was not attributable to the assessee but to external factors like builder's delay and court orders. The intention of the assessee at the time of investment was to purchase a residential unit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of the share applicants. Since nine out of ten applicants confirmed the share applications and their details were available, and the AO failed to bring any cogent material to contradict this, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed ex parte without appreciating the merits of the case and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee, being a semi-literate agriculturist, was not well-versed with income tax laws.

The Tribunal found that the investments in plots were adequately explained by withdrawals from bank and post office accounts. However, a portion of the investment in guest house construction, claimed from personal savings, remained unexplained.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as non-maintainable due to the low tax effect, adhering to CBDT instructions. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO's 8% net profit rate was not reasonable as it lacked nexus to available material, past history, or comparable cases. Considering the assessee's own past history and a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal estimated the net profit rate at 5.25%.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for a de novo assessment. This was done because the assessee's cross-appeal on the same issue was also restored to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the evidence regarding the construction of the residential house. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s reliance on an older High Court decision was misplaced due to subsequent amendments to the definition of 'books of account'.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed sufficient documents to substantiate its claim for 80G approval. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to submit supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment application and by not considering the surrendered amount. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were set aside and remanded. Since the penalty order is a consequence of the quantum proceedings, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was also set aside and remanded. The Tribunal directed that if quantum additions are dropped, penalty proceedings should be dropped; otherwise, the CIT(A) should issue a show-cause notice for penalty imposition.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, stating that the assessee failed to prove that no loss was caused to the revenue due to non-deduction or short deduction of TDS. The assessee did not provide details of depositors to verify income declaration.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was without jurisdiction. This was because the PCIT had failed to consider the order passed by the CIT(A) and had issued the show cause notice after the appellate proceedings had concluded, rendering the revisionary exercise invalid.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of the house was not in dispute. The sole disputed issue was the allowability of deduction for the cost of improvement, based on the affidavit of the deceased assessee's wife. The Tribunal found that the assessee's counsel failed to demonstrate the alleged expenditure on improvement with corroborative evidence, such as bills, vouchers, bank withdrawals, or cheque payments. No documentary or material evidence was produced to substantiate the construction work. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that a mere affidavit from the wife, without supporting factual evidence, is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof for cost of improvement. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was considered fair, reasonable, and as per law. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal acknowledged that ad-hoc disallowances without specific errors are not legally permissible. However, to settle the dispute, a compromise disallowance of Rs. 1,48,641/- was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served on the assessee at the correct address, and therefore, no presumption of service could be raised. Consequently, the Assessing Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction, vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 14,31,582/- as unexplained income, stating the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the agricultural income and its source. The addition of Rs. 43,804/- for RD interest was also confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and non-speaking, failing to address the assessee's contentions adequately. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in these appeals was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of land ownership and lease. Since the Assessing Officer did not provide contrary evidence, the deposits were considered genuine income from agricultural produce.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's estimation was not properly substantiated by comparable cases. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply a lower net profit rate of 0.17% instead of 0.20%.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that the provision does not mandate that the assessee must own the educational institution; it is sufficient if the income is received on behalf of an educational institution. The assessee society is engaged in upgrading and improving a government-run ITI and providing on-the-job training, which are integral and essential parts of educational activities. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities admitted the assessee was managing an educational institution. Furthermore, the memorandum of understanding with the government clearly indicated the objective of imparting education and improving the standard of the ITI. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal held that since the substantive appeal for exemption was allowed, the basis for the penalty ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty was deleted in the interest of justice. The appeal was allowed.