Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that Section 192(2B) of the Income Tax Act does not grant the employer inherent authority to suo moto deduct TDS on other income heads without the employee furnishing necessary particulars. Therefore, AMU could not be held as an assessee-in-default for not deducting TDS on consultancy charges.
The tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 7,13,000/- as it pertained to a prior year and was not a statutory liability. The 20% disallowance on expenses was reduced to 5% in the interest of justice.
The tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's averments regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's revision order under section 263 was passed without properly impleading the legal representative of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not taken steps to ascertain the particulars of the legal representative as required by law.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's grounds and the Revenue's contentions. While not fully agreeing with either party, it found that the assessee had provided evidence explaining the source of funds. Taking into account the socio-economic status of the assessee and relatives, a lump sum addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- was deemed just and proper, without setting a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's case was a tax audit case, which automatically extends the due date for filing returns. The Tribunal also noted that the loss for AY 2009-10 had previously been quantified and allowed to be carried forward. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee fully proved the source nor the department fully rebutted the possibility of accumulated savings. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lump sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that cash sales were disclosed and supported by audited books, and abnormal sales during festival seasons are not uncommon. The claim regarding money from the father, while not supported by cogent evidence, could not be entirely disbelieved. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider only Rs. 2,00,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A, to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, not the enhanced rate of 60%.
The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the revenue since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the scheme declaration does not attain finality.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance of export commission expenses and participation charges paid to non-residents, as tax was not deductible at source since the income was not taxable in India. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 60 Lacs and that this circular is applicable to all pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue with a low tax effect was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be sufficient cause and directed the NFAC to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. The NFAC was also instructed to pass a speaking order on all grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee, but after hearing the Revenue's representative and perusing the records, it was found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without a proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for delay to be sufficient cause and directed the NFAC to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. The NFAC was also instructed to pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding the assessee's eligibility for the deduction had arisen in the preceding assessment year, 2016-17. Both parties agreed that the impugned claim involved the same issues as in the previous year.
The Tribunal found the cash book evidence insufficient to explain the cash deposits. Frequent cash withdrawals, even after bulk withdrawals, and insufficient household expenses suggested the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere, thus not available as a source for the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the levy of surcharge is statutory and consequential to the determination of income. Any change in income due to appeals would automatically adjust the surcharge, rendering the assessee's appeal on this point meritless.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's discussion proceeded ex-parte without proper framing of points of determination. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction, stemming from the proper service of notice under Section 148, is fundamental and cannot be cured by subsequent provisions. The reliance by the NFAC on the AO's order without verifying service of notice was deemed insufficient. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for proving service of the notice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was 'unabated' and additions were to be based on seized material. However, since no additions were made on the basis of specific seized material, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on the surviving issues after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal, citing the "VSVS" Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that a previous coordinate bench had accepted a net profit rate of 4.5% and included FDR interest as business income. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction to disallow interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) was unsustainable in law. It also found that the claimed deductions were statutory and could not be denied.
The Tribunal held that the "situs" of the Assessing Officer's office is the decisive factor for territorial jurisdiction. Based on the standing order and precedent, the Agra Bench lacks jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer is not located within its territorial limits. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) cannot be granted for AY 2017-18 as the assessee failed to file its return of income by the due date, as required by the amended provisions. However, the case was restored to the AO for denovo assessment as an AOP, considering fee collections as explainable cash deposits and determining profit based on actual results.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be sufficient cause and directed the NFAC to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. The NFAC was also instructed to pass a speaking order on all grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that neither the assessee nor the Revenue's arguments could be fully concurred with. It was noted that the assessee, a civil contractor, had declared gross receipts of Rs. 26,45,86,902/- yielding a net profit of Rs. 1,54,72,360/- (5.84%). The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not been able to fully prove the four expenditure items to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Conversely, the lower authorities had not identified any specific shortcomings in the corresponding books of account. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance/addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of the total disputed amount of Rs. 25,18,014/-. This relief to the assessee amounts to Rs. 17,18,014/-. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision should not be treated as a precedent. The issue of specific disallowances for each category of expense was not decided individually.
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not satisfied the statutory conditions to be recognized as a "legal representative" of the deceased assessee. Specifically, the appellant failed to prove that he represented the estate of the deceased or was an intermeddler thereof, nor had any action been initiated against him under section 159 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim as a "legal representative" and rejected the appeal at that stage. The appeal was dismissed as premature. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if he could satisfy the statutory conditions of a "legal representative" or if the department initiated proceedings against him under section 159 of the Act, whichever occurred earlier. The issue of the merits of the assessment proceedings was not decided.