Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing a precedent that such approval vitiates the entire reopening process.
The tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was set aside, requiring re-adjudication. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of a revised assessment.
The Tribunal held that the presumption of correctness of seized material does not extend to a "third" person other than the searched assessee. Without further substantiation, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that regardless of whether the company declared the income, the capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the assessee as the land was registered in his name. The assessee's admission of acting as both purchaser and seller before the registration authority supported this decision.
The assessee opted for settlement under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, which was the basis for withdrawing the appeal. The Revenue did not dispute these averments.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 20.00 lakhs was explained by the land transactions, and the balance Rs. 1.18 lakhs was accepted as agricultural income. The Tribunal also allowed the benefit of telescoping for the investment, as the explained cash deposit exceeded the investment amount.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made out a case for reasonable explanation for non-payment of taxes due to a pending waiver application for interest. Therefore, the penalty under section 221(1) was deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had collected Forms-15G from recipients. Citing the case of Karwat Steel Traders vs ITO, the Tribunal held that TDS liability cannot be fastened on the deductor if Forms-15G are collected.
The Tribunal noted that the prescribed authority's approval for reopening was mechanical, as indicated by the phrase 'Yes, it is a fit case'. Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was set aside, requiring re-adjudication. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of a revised assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the prescribed authority's approval for reopening was mechanical, as indicated by the phrase 'Yes, it is a fit case'. Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.
For ITA No. 40/Agr/2023 (AY 2016-17), the Tribunal found no merit in the additions made under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) as they were not based on seized/incriminating material. For ITA No. 41/Agr/2023 (AY 2018-19), the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, finding merit in invoking section 115BBE for rate purposes but rejecting the section 41(1) addition.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not dispute the applicability of the CBDT's tax effect circular with retrospective effect on pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed on limited scrutiny, yet the disallowance was not part of the limited scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal because they opted for settlement under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue did not dispute these averments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order to grant registration under section 12 instead of 10(23C)(vi) was not sustainable in law. The power to choose the relevant statutory provision for adjudication does not lie with the revenue authorities.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because they opted for settlement under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 for the assessment year 2019-20. The Revenue did not dispute this.
Upon perusal of the assessee's bank account statement, the peak balance was found to be Rs. 1,30,906/-. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to consider this peak amount as the addition for unexplained income, with the condition that this estimation would not serve as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and source of the cash deposits. While the assessee's claim of a partnership firm was not adequately explained, the Tribunal considered the possibility of accumulated past family savings.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's additional legal ground regarding the validity of reopening without Section 151 approval. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal considered that the DVO himself reduced the fair market value of the capital asset, and thus granted partial relief.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the taxpayer's business of trading and commission in remand proceedings. The CIT(A) had added Rs. 6,61,443/- as unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 1,61,443/- in the interest of justice, stating this estimation would not be a precedent.
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.
The Tribunal held that when seized documents belong to a "third" person other than the searched assessee, the presumption of correctness of the contents of the seized material does not extend to the assessee. Since no further substantiation was provided by the Revenue, the CIT(Appeals)'s order deleting the additions was confirmed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It set aside the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted as an 'Arhati' for poor farmers in the unorganized sector, dealing in perishable commodities where stock losses are possible. The initially estimated rate of 3% was not supported by comparable instances. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission at 1% on the impugned withdrawals.
For ITA No. 40/Agr/2023 (AY 2016-17), the Tribunal found no merit in the additions made under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) as they were not based on seized/incriminating material. For ITA No. 41/Agr/2023 (AY 2018-19), the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, finding merit in invoking section 115BBE for rate purposes but rejecting the section 41(1) addition.
The Tribunal noted that the cash deposit was partly from the sale of agricultural land. While the principle was accepted that such deposits could represent on-money components, the assessee failed to reconcile the entire cash deposits with on-money receipts. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing a precedent. Consequently, all other pleas on merits became academic.
The Tribunal found a lack of clarity regarding the exact date of the sale deed execution in the orders of the lower authorities and the sale document itself. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the facts and investigate the precise date of the sale deed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not reconcile details and the department could not pinpoint defects. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to make a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000 instead of the disputed Rs. 36,66,600, with the condition that this would not be a precedent. The assessee was granted relief of Rs. 31,66,600.
The Tribunal held that the presumption of correctness of seized material does not extend to a "third" person other than the searched assessee. Without further substantiation, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was confirmed.
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 acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The delay in filing the appeal was also condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed its return of income within the prescribed due date under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee has filed a representation before the CIT(E) to condone the delay, which is yet to be decided.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities added the difference between the actual sale price and the stamp price as long-term capital gain without referring the matter to the DVO, which is mandatory under section 50C. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for an adjournment, noting that no additions were made by the Revenue based on the seized material. The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A are to be based solely on specific seized material.
The Tribunal held that the issue needed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A)/NFAC, with the assessee bearing the responsibility to prove the relevant facts.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, which had a crucial bearing on the issues, should not have been rejected on technical grounds. Therefore, the issues were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The assessee's counsel requested withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The department representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 24,90,250/- as unexplained cash deposits is not sustainable. The reasoning is that the very issue of profit rate addition on these cash deposits had been settled in the first round of appeal, where the addition of Rs. 1,17,012/- was deleted by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal found no reason to concur with the Revenue's stand that the entire cash deposit addition could be revived based on the same observations that led to the deletion of the profit element. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground for deletion of the impugned addition in its entirety. The operative direction is the deletion of the impugned addition. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The tribunal considered the withdrawal applications filed by the assessee. The department representative raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision directions for Kumkum Saxena were unsustainable as they went beyond the scope of 'limited' scrutiny concerning cash deposits, restoring the issue of long-term capital gain. For Gopal Saxena, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed inquiries regarding his cash deposits and the sale of immovable property, and these facts were not rebutted by the Revenue.