Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that if the AO accepts that the items for which reasons were recorded have not escaped assessment, it implies a lack of "reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment", rendering the notice invalid and without jurisdiction to assess any other income. Since no addition was made on the basis of the reopening's grounds, the reopening fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not dispute this averment. Therefore, the appeal was considered as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contentions, stating that the Assessing Officer had treated cash deposits as business turnover and conducted assessments accordingly. Therefore, the revision orders were deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that for transactions prior to 01.04.2017, the rate of tax is not 60% as per the Madras High Court ruling in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Therefore, the nature of the transaction becomes immaterial, and it should be subjected to the normal rate of tax.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the tax audit report (Form-10B) is a directory, not a mandatory, provision. A Gujarat High Court ruling supports this interpretation, settling the issue in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, by operating a cold storage facility and renting it to growers for produce preservation, was engaged in the business of 'preservation' as contemplated by Section 80IB(11A). Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary power was incorrectly exercised.
The Judicial Member noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not dispute this assertion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not question the source of the assessee's withdrawals. Given that the addition was based on unexplained expenditure and the source was identified as withdrawals, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal.
The tribunal noted that the deposit in question involved a withdrawal of Rs. 70 lacs by Smt. Bhagwanti Devi from a joint account which had received sale consideration. Therefore, the addition to that extent could not be sustained, but the remaining Rs. 30 lacs addition was confirmed. Another addition of Rs. 15 lacs was also confirmed as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving genuineness.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was Rs.42,87,269, which is less than the minimum tax effect of Rs.60 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the applicability of this circular with retrospective effect.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the applicability of this circular to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee not to submit its return, given that its income was assessed as 'Nil'. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(e) was deleted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's condonation application, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal also quashed the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 as the addition was made under section 69A instead of the intended section 50C for capital gains, which was not sustainable.
The Tribunal referred to landmark decisions stating that protective additions are applicable only when there's doubt about the hands in which income should be assessed. Since no such doubt was expressed and no substantive addition was made prior to the protective addition, and also considering that protective additions cannot be made under Section 147/148 proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the impugned addition.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and therefore vitiated the entire reopening process. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at her risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the case was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was vitiated due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's objection to the additional evidence being filed for the first time. It was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to factually verify the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the case selected for limited scrutiny related to demonetization, which occurred in FY 2016-17, while the relevant previous year was FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17). The lower authorities could not convert a limited scrutiny case to a complete scrutiny without proper approval.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of cash deposits despite claiming them as business receipts. The appellant did not produce any supporting documents like books of account or sales bills, thus failing to discharge the onus under Section 68. The claim for adding only the peak amount of deposits was also rejected as self-contradictory.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Considering the larger interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that no specific defect was pointed out by the AO while rejecting the assessee's books. While the CIT(A) had deleted the addition entirely, the Tribunal was of the considered view that a lump sum addition of Rs. 5 lac would be just and proper to plug leakages, with the rider that this would not be treated as a precedent. This ground was thus partly allowed. Regarding the second issue concerning the addition of Rs. 14,74,725/- for bogus purchases under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the Revenue could hardly dispute that these purchases were reflected in the assessee's trading account and that the assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore, this ground was dismissed. The Revenue's appeal was thus partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's chronic ailment constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal referred to landmark decisions stating that protective additions are applicable only when there's doubt about the hands in which income should be assessed. Since no such doubt was expressed and no substantive addition was made prior to the protective addition, and also considering that protective additions cannot be made under Section 147/148 proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the impugned addition.
The assessee had filed an application under the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024', and submitted Form 1 & 2. The prescribed authority had not yet issued Form 4. The Revenue did not dispute these averments.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's application for condonation of the 87-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had indeed made out a case for condoning the delay, based on the averments filed before the lower authorities. Citing the precedent of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal condoned the delay. Consequently, the matter was restored to the learned CIT(A)-NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)-NFAC was directed to grant three effective opportunities to the assessee for this purpose, at the assessee's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the lower appeals, citing reasonable cause due to communication gaps and relocation. The CIT(A)-NFAC was directed to decide the appeals afresh on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 45-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's NRI status and lack of communication during ex-parte assessment proceedings. The Tribunal also restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, given the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that if the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee, as per the registered valuer's report, is not found to be less than the fair market value under section 55A(a) (prior to the 2012 amendment), then the departmental authorities cannot disregard it.
The Tribunal acknowledged that communication gaps, particularly with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, could not be ruled out. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to set aside the appeal.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove claimed expenses leading to the rejection of books, the estimated profit rate of 8% was excessive. Therefore, the profit rate was reduced from 8% to 4%.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication. This was done to afford the assessee another opportunity to be heard and substantiate its case, in line with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank statement showed a peak balance of Rs. 1,27,800/- as of 10.09.2010, which was not rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition was restricted to this peak balance amount.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's averments. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on mere inference, as the seized documents did not provide any instance of actual payment. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the sale of silver bullion, despite disclosing it under IDS, 2016. The burden of proof was on the assessee to demonstrate the facts and the transaction, which she failed to do. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld in principle.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee also raised a legal ground that the assessment under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) also failed to conduct necessary inquiries. While the assessee was equally responsible for non-compliance, the Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic, non-speaking order by failing to adjudicate the legal grounds challenging the reopening and the additions made. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including affidavits and sale deeds, was crucial and required verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The tribunal noted that communication gaps might have occurred due to the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the Section 148 notice was not properly served as required by the Act. The notice was quashed accordingly.