ITAT Agra Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the same material available during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion without fresh tangible material. This was impermissible as per the Kelvinator of India Ltd. case.

The Tribunal observed that the AO issued multiple notices and the assessee duly responded to them. The AO examined the books of accounts and other documents, and after due consideration, accepted the returned income. The revisionary order was found to be based on a 'fishing and roving inquiry' without establishing how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT failed to record any specific findings to justify the revision, which was contrary to established legal principles.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issues flagged by the Pr. CIT were well-documented and inquired into by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO had applied his mind and accepted the assessee's claim, making a plausible view. The Pr. CIT cannot substitute his own view for that of the AO simply because further verification was possible.

The Tribunal considered the principles of natural justice and the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless regime, and decided to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view based on the facts and submissions. The Pr. CIT could not substitute his own view for that of the AO simply because further verification was required or done differently. The revision order was not sustainable in law as it was not shown that the AO's view was erroneous or opposed to law.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction could not be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction vested with the AO. The assessment framed by the AO was not erroneous, and the Pr. CIT could not traverse beyond the AO's jurisdiction.

Considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment had been partly allowed by a previous order, which would have a material bearing on the penalties. Therefore, both penalties were restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove herself as the legal representative as per statutory provisions. Unless the appellant proves she is managing the estate or acting as an intermeddler, the appeal cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal held that a mere mistake in filling the relevant columns of the income tax return should not deprive the assessee of a legitimate claim if they are otherwise eligible. Principles of natural justice necessitate granting another opportunity to the assessee to prove its claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles from Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's denial of deduction based on the due date was incorrect as the return was filed within the extended period. The CIT(A) also erred in going beyond the scope of section 143(1) processing and disallowing the deduction on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment notices were issued beyond 6 years from the assessment year, making the assessment clearly time-barred. The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the legal ground raised by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's net profit rate was better than previous years and a 12% estimation was not justified, especially when Section 44AD provides for a presumptive income of 8%. The AO was directed to estimate income at 6.5% of the declared turnover.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view based on the facts and submissions. The Pr. CIT could not substitute his own view for that of the AO simply because further verification was required or done differently. The revision order was not sustainable in law as it was not shown that the AO's view was erroneous or opposed to law.

The Tribunal observed that the sale deed date was wrongly considered by the AO, and the assessee's explanation was supported by an affidavit from their father. For the AY 2012-13 appeal, the Tribunal deleted the imputed addition and allowed the appeal. For the AY 2015-16 appeal, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, keeping all issues open.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as the expenditure was not claimed by the assessee. For investments, additions were deleted as the transactions were either admitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) or lacked corroborative evidence and were based on mere notings. Gifts of shares were not taxed as the relevant section was not applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as the expenditure was not claimed by the assessee. For investments, additions were deleted as the transactions were either admitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) or lacked corroborative evidence and were based on mere notings. Gifts of shares were not taxed as the relevant section was not applicable for the assessment year.

The CIT(A) confirmed the rectification order, holding that the fresh claim made by the assessee was beyond the scope of Section 154, as it was not made or examined in the original return or during processing under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment had been partly allowed by a previous order, which would have a material bearing on the penalties. Therefore, both penalties were restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the source of the cash deposits, naming individuals and providing confirmations. However, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not adequately verify these claims. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for proper verification of the source of the deposits.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment notices were issued beyond 6 years from the assessment year, making the assessment clearly time-barred. The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the legal ground raised by the assessees.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their claim, considering recent CBDT notifications and case law.

The Tribunal held that admissions made during a survey do not bind the assessee and require corroboration. Considering the subjective nature of stock valuation in manufacturing and the assessee's export focus, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a lower Gross Profit Rate for calculating additional income.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that only the profit embedded in suppressed sales could be taxed. The estimation made by the CIT(A) was deemed reasonable and did not require interference.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had made factual findings supported by remand reports and the assessee's financial statements, which the revenue failed to controvert.

The Tribunal held that the seized notebook contained mere offers for purchases, and accepted offers were recorded in the regular books of accounts. This was corroborated by broker affidavits, and the Assessing Officer accepted that a significant portion of purchases were recorded.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred were integral to making the residential unit livable and part of the construction. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) could not be upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly considered all aspects of capital gains and the assessee's submissions during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view based on the facts and documents, which could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal granted further relief of Rs. 5,36,900/- considering the assessee's background and agricultural income, confirming the remaining addition of Rs. 20 Lacs.

The CIT(A) observed that the AO's extrapolation of receipts for the entire year was not supported by material evidence. The CIT(A) also deleted the addition of bank credits, deeming it a double addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries during the limited scrutiny assessment and accepted one of the plausible views. The revision by the Pr. CIT was deemed to be a 'fishing or roving inquiry' and not justified as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revision was based on fishing and roving inquiries and lacked independent findings to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revision was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Rs. 5 Crores received by the assessee was a commercial transaction, not a deemed dividend. This was because the assessee had provided collateral and personal guarantee for company loans, and the amount was advanced for a short term to facilitate business expansion.

The Tribunal restored the issues of unsecured loans and capital account additions to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to substantiate its case. The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5%.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's evidence was deficient, the lower authorities did not adequately inform the assessee of these defects. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case promptly.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the loans and the purchases.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) contained a typographical error, mentioning Rs. 269.10 Lacs instead of Rs. 296.10 Lacs. The Tribunal corrected this error and directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 296.10 Lacs.