ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that since the jurisdictional High Court had quashed the reassessment notices and consequential assessment orders, the Revenue's appeals had no basis. The Revenue also failed to provide any stay order from the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the genuineness of the gifts warranted further consideration. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his case.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time for filing applications and allowed the assessee to make a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing fresh applications for registration under Section 12A. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application with the required documents within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications for 80G approval until June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee has an opportunity to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's lack of familiarity with income tax procedures and the IT portal. It held that the ex-parte orders were passed without sufficient opportunity and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s orders. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's lack of familiarity with income tax procedures and the IT portal. It held that the ex-parte orders were passed without sufficient opportunity and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the reassessment order and directed the AO to consider additional evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case with proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the trust's lack of technical expertise and the CA's lapse. The CIT(E)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing such applications until June 30, 2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, granting the assessee liberty to file a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee received the required relief from the Ld. CIT(E) and therefore requested to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that since the jurisdictional High Court had quashed the reassessment notices and consequential assessment orders, the Revenue's appeals had no basis. The Revenue also failed to provide any stay order from the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications under Section 80G(5) and Section 12A until June 30, 2024. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the AO's remand report accepted the investment as explained. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to tenants were not related to the plot sold to SEWA, as the sale deed indicated vacant possession and no existing tenants on that specific plot. Therefore, the cost of the property was correctly taken at Rs. 26,16,000/-, and the addition of Rs. 46,39,000/- was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper observation on the service of hearing notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- cannot be sustained solely based on the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in *Kailashben Manoharlal Choksi Vs. CIT* (Supra), which states that no addition can be made merely on a section 132(4) statement unless supported by corroborative evidence. The AO and CIT(A) did not point out any independent evidence to substantiate the addition. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had consistently provided explanations for some details and showed that the admission made during the search was not entirely correct. Considering the alternate plea and the explanations provided for receipts and expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to add only the net difference of Rs. 1,63,600/- to the income of the assessee for AY 2010-11. The issue of whether the statement under section 132(4) is applicable in section 153C proceedings was implicitly addressed by finding that it cannot be the sole basis for addition without corroboration.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable when the assessee maintains proper books of accounts which are not rejected. Since the assessee provided debtor details and the currency was legal tender, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) should have made inquiries or sought further information instead of dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on Fixed Deposits pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of business is a capital receipt. This capital receipt should be adjusted against pre-operative expenses.

The Tribunal noted that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to incorrect email IDs, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and instead dismissed it for non-compliance. The appellate order was set aside as it violated Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on Fixed Deposits pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of business is a capital receipt. This capital receipt should be adjusted against pre-operative expenses.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 extended the time for filing applications for registration to 30.06.2024. Therefore, the assessee could file a fresh application for AY 2022-23 within this extended period.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefits of Rs. 78,09,680/- against additions totalling Rs. 84,09,680/- and Rs. 18,19,714/- against an addition of Rs. 27,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) had considered expenses allowed as relief for the same AY 2020-21 in the appeals of partnership firms (M/s. Orchid Infracon and M/s. Orchid Developers), and profits confirmed in earlier years for these firms. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly applied the principle of telescoping, which allows an assessee to explain expenditure by showing it was funded by income or receipts. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had already decided appeals relating to the firms where the assessee is a partner, and the Ld. DR had not objected to this fact. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning that the net result of unaccounted purchases and sales needed to be taxed and that income in the form of net profit from earlier years was available as cash in hand. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was justified to avoid double taxation and found no reason to interfere. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding four creditors (Jitendrasinh Udaysinh Gohil, Babubhai M. Patel, and two others not explicitly named but discussed in para 8), the assessee failed to establish creditworthiness and genuineness, and no evidence was brought on record to controvert adverse findings. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 in respect of these four creditors was upheld. However, concerning Gurukul Vinimay P. Ltd. and Maruti Nandan Implex Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee had prima facie established identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The CIT(A)'s conclusion that Gurukul Vinimay P. Ltd. provided accommodation entries was deemed baseless without any inquiry or adverse evidence. For Maruti Nandan Implex Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that a loss return is not a true indicator of creditworthiness and that the Revenue could not treat a part of the loan repaid as explained and the outstanding part as unexplained when the entire loan was obtained in a single transaction. Thus, the addition in respect of these two creditors was deleted. The total addition confirmed was Rs. 20,00,000, and the balance amount was deleted. The issue regarding the AO not accepting additional evidence was implicitly addressed by the Tribunal's examination of the evidence presented.

The Tribunal upheld the ex-parte assessment order, noting the assessee's failure to provide any evidence or explanation for investments and undisclosed interest income, despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to miscommunication and admitted additional evidence. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended the time for such applications. The matters were set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for de-novo consideration, granting the trusts another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made part payment and entered into a Banakhat (agreement) before the increase in Jantri rates. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 50C was applicable, and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing opportunities to both parties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits and failed to consider additional evidence. The disallowance of loading and unloading charges was deleted as no defects were pointed out.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing opportunities to both parties.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to substantial relief obtained. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares through banking channels and recognized stock exchanges. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of third parties whose statements were used for the addition.