Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 1 of 6
Regarding the first issue concerning the property 'Iscon Elegance', the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.6,30,000/- under the head 'Income From House Property' was not in accordance with the provisions of law and directed its deletion. The reasoning was that the authorities below erred in determining the Annual Value of the property at Rs.9 lakhs by applying Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 23(1)(c) pertains to properties vacant for the whole or part of the year, and the assessee had claimed the property was used for business purposes. The Tribunal found that the addition was not justified. Ground No. 3 was allowed, and other grounds related to this issue were not considered necessary to deal with. Regarding the second issue concerning the unexplained jewellery, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee. It held that out of the total jewellery found, only a negligible amount of Rs.4.72 lakhs was found to be unexplained, which was less than 1% of the total jewellery. Considering the period over which jewellery is acquired and the element of estimation in valuation, minor differences are probable. The Tribunal found the difference not material enough to treat as unexplained and added to the income. The addition was directed to be deleted, and the appeal was allowed. The ratio is that minor unexplained differences in jewellery valuation, especially when a large percentage is explained, should not lead to additions, and properties used for own business are not subject to house property income tax.
The Tribunal allowed Ground Nos. 1 & 1.1, holding that the issue regarding the date of initiation of search for the purpose of determining the six-year period for assessment under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh. Applying this decision, the Tribunal found that the material and information relating to the assessee were received by the jurisdictional AO on 16/03/2018. The six years prior to the assessment year in which this material was received (AY 2018-19) would end with AY 2012-13. Therefore, AY 2011-12 falls outside the permissible period for assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment framed was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO and not legally sustainable, thus setting aside the AO's order as invalid. As the AO's order was set aside as invalid, the remaining grounds raised by the assessee on merits were rendered academic and did not require adjudication. The appeal was allowed in terms of the decision on the limitation issue.
Regarding the first issue concerning the property 'Iscon Elegance', the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.6,30,000/- under the head 'Income From House Property' was not in accordance with the provisions of law and directed its deletion. The reasoning was that the authorities below erred in determining the Annual Value of the property at Rs.9 lakhs by applying Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 23(1)(c) pertains to properties vacant for the whole or part of the year, and the assessee had claimed the property was used for business purposes. The Tribunal found that the addition was not justified. Ground No. 3 was allowed, and other grounds related to this issue were not considered necessary to deal with. Regarding the second issue concerning the unexplained jewellery, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee. It held that out of the total jewellery found, only a negligible amount of Rs.4.72 lakhs was found to be unexplained, which was less than 1% of the total jewellery. Considering the period over which jewellery is acquired and the element of estimation in valuation, minor differences are probable. The Tribunal found the difference not material enough to treat as unexplained and added to the income. The addition was directed to be deleted, and the appeal was allowed. The ratio is that minor unexplained differences in jewellery valuation, especially when a large percentage is explained, should not lead to additions, and properties used for own business are not subject to house property income tax.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the case back to the Jurisdictional AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was given one more opportunity of hearing with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had consciously chosen not to file an appeal initially and failed to make out a case on merits to justify condoning the significant delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that additions for unexplained loans and commission for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were invalid in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Abhisar Buildwell. Other grounds were partly allowed or dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal upheld the existence of unaccounted sales and the addition of Rs. 45,08,126/-, representing 6% profit on such sales. The Revenue's contention to tax the entire sum was rejected, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A when incriminating material is found during a search. In the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess income for completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Supreme Court in 'Abhisar Buildwell' held that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be made in respect of completed assessments. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO on account of unsecured loans and commission for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any specific incriminating material found during the search related to these specific additions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings in deleting these additions were reversed, and the AO's additions were upheld for these specific grounds. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to make submissions on merits regarding these specific additions. Consequently, Revenue's grounds relating to AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were allowed. The appeals were decided in a combined manner, with some assessee appeals partly allowed, some revenue appeals partly allowed, and others dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Firstly, it held that the scheme of taxation for LLPs and partners is clear under the Act, with the LLP being a distinct taxable entity and its partners exempt from tax on their share of profit under Section 10(2A). The AO's action of taxing the partner's share separately was contrary to the Act and unsustainable, especially since the LLP's income was already assessed and subsequently deleted in its appeal, preventing double taxation. Secondly, the Tribunal found that Section 68 was inapplicable as the assessee's share of profit from the LLP was fully explained and recorded in the LLP's books, meaning there was no unexplained credit in the partner's books. Thirdly, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect of Rs.52,55,553/- was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs.60 Lacs for filing appeals, and the Revenue had not demonstrated any exception. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Tribunal also commented on the Revenue's approach in filing appeals lacking merit and contrary to the statutory framework.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
The Tribunal held that the existence of unaccounted sales was confirmed, and the reliance on seized documents, third-party statements, and corroborative evidence by the AO was justified. The assessee denied receiving cash but failed to disprove the seized diary entries or provide counterevidence. The Tribunal applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee, which it failed to discharge. The Revenue's contention that the entire sum should be taxed as income was rejected, as only the profit embedded in such sales is taxable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s adoption of a 6% profit margin as a reasonable approximation of the assessee's profit from these unaccounted sales, considering the possibility of corresponding purchases being accounted for and the absence of further analysis to ascertain a higher margin. The addition under Section 69A was upheld at Rs. 45,08,126/-. The Tribunal relied on precedents like Sumati Dayal vs. CIT and President Industries.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 regarding additions on account of unsecured loans and commission payments. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra), which held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess completed/unabated assessments based solely on other materials. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO for these specific items for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were based on 'other materials' and not on any seized incriminating material from the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A for these specific additions in unabated years. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed on this point. The judgment also notes that the assessee failed to make submissions on the merits of the case concerning these specific additions. The operative directions indicate that the Revenue's grounds were allowed, implying the additions made by the AO for these specific issues in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are upheld. The final result indicates that some appeals were partly allowed, some dismissed, and some allowed, reflecting the complex nature of the cross-appeals and the various issues addressed.
Regarding the first issue concerning the property 'Iscon Elegance', the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.6,30,000/- under the head 'Income From House Property' was not in accordance with the provisions of law and directed its deletion. The reasoning was that the authorities below erred in determining the Annual Value of the property at Rs.9 lakhs by applying Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 23(1)(c) pertains to properties vacant for the whole or part of the year, and the assessee had claimed the property was used for business purposes. The Tribunal found that the addition was not justified. Ground No. 3 was allowed, and other grounds related to this issue were not considered necessary to deal with. Regarding the second issue concerning the unexplained jewellery, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee. It held that out of the total jewellery found, only a negligible amount of Rs.4.72 lakhs was found to be unexplained, which was less than 1% of the total jewellery. Considering the period over which jewellery is acquired and the element of estimation in valuation, minor differences are probable. The Tribunal found the difference not material enough to treat as unexplained and added to the income. The addition was directed to be deleted, and the appeal was allowed. The ratio is that minor unexplained differences in jewellery valuation, especially when a large percentage is explained, should not lead to additions, and properties used for own business are not subject to house property income tax.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a mechanical order without independent application of mind and failed to consider the ITAT's earlier order deleting the addition. Since the basis for the penalty was removed, the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating all cash deposits as anonymous donations without examining whether they were accumulations of small cash donations with identifiable donors. The Tribunal noted that donations up to Rs. 2,000 made in cash, with donor's name and mobile number, cannot be considered anonymous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the trust's charitable activities and that the rejection was on technical grounds, not merits. Considering the subsequent amendment to Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which now permits provisional approval under Section 10(23C)(vi), the Tribunal set aside both the Section 12A registration and Section 80G(5) approval matters to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the trust's charitable activities and that the rejection was on technical grounds, not merits. Considering the subsequent amendment to Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which now permits provisional approval under Section 10(23C)(vi), the Tribunal set aside both the Section 12A registration and Section 80G(5) approval matters to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeal, additional documents were filed before the Tribunal, leading the Tribunal to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. Firstly, the Tribunal found that losses from futures and options trading (Rs. 4,07,195/-) were eligible for set-off against short-term capital gains (Rs. 5,90,935/-) as per Section 71(2) of the Act. This meant the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the entire short-term capital gains, thus weakening the basis for penalty. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the AO's notice initiating penalty proceedings and the subsequent order imposing penalty lacked clarity on whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the AO must make categorical findings on this aspect. Since this was not done, the penalty order was liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed.
The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT guidelines due to the low tax effect. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for unabated years, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting additions based on material found from the premises of Jigar K. Mandaliya, a third party. However, for the abated assessment year (2018-19), the CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that additions could only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized from the assessee's premises. In abated assessments, additions can be made even without incriminating material and can also pertain to issues not related to the search. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s calculation of profit and peak balance was based only on material from the assessee's premises. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO to re-work the peak balance and profit for the relevant years (2015-16 to 2019-20) by considering all entries from both the assessee's and Jigar K. Mandaliya's premises. The AO was directed to allow the benefit of telescoping of profit and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Revenue's grounds were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The reasoning was that additional documents, including bank statements and ITR acknowledgements for three unsecured creditors, were filed for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found it fit to allow the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to consider these new documents and verify them, along with the assessee's submission that major portions of the loans have already been repaid. The ratio is that when crucial additional evidence is produced before the Tribunal for the first time, and the Revenue consents to its consideration but requests verification, the matter can be remanded to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the additions, as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact limb of Section 270A under which the penalty was levied and that the assessee's case did not fall under the specific instances of mis-reporting of income mentioned in Section 270A(9). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, the assessee failed to appear for the final hearing and her representative withdrew. The tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, finding no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A), which had already provided substantial relief.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the undisclosed income. The assessment order was set aside to the extent of the undisclosed income, with a direction for a fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to explain the discrepancy and then decide the case on merits for registration.
The Tribunal held that for unabated years, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting additions based on material found from the premises of Jigar K. Mandaliya, a third party. However, for the abated assessment year (2018-19), the CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that additions could only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized from the assessee's premises. In abated assessments, additions can be made even without incriminating material and can also pertain to issues not related to the search. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s calculation of profit and peak balance was based only on material from the assessee's premises. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO to re-work the peak balance and profit for the relevant years (2015-16 to 2019-20) by considering all entries from both the assessee's and Jigar K. Mandaliya's premises. The AO was directed to allow the benefit of telescoping of profit and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Revenue's grounds were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's consistent plea of unfamiliarity with legal technicalities and their efforts to comply through a consultant, despite which ex-parte orders were passed. The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs.2,22,70,750/- represented the entire bank account credit against Nil returned income, and that the assessee had not been heard by any of the lower authorities. Considering the disproportionate tax liability as punishment for the assessee's negligence and taking a sympathetic view in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Furthermore, since the assessee had not been heard by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary contention was that the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was made without providing an opportunity of hearing. The assessee argued that Section 143(1) necessitates providing an opportunity of hearing before making any adjustment to income. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal considered it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter make the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not adjudicated as the matter is remanded.
The Tribunal held that for unabated years, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting additions based on material found from the premises of Jigar K. Mandaliya, a third party. However, for the abated assessment year (2018-19), the CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that additions could only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized from the assessee's premises. In abated assessments, additions can be made even without incriminating material and can also pertain to issues not related to the search. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s calculation of profit and peak balance was based only on material from the assessee's premises. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO to re-work the peak balance and profit for the relevant years (2015-16 to 2019-20) by considering all entries from both the assessee's and Jigar K. Mandaliya's premises. The AO was directed to allow the benefit of telescoping of profit and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Revenue's grounds were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal was informed that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the trust's objects were revised to not be restricted to a specific religious group. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, which was accepted by the Ld. PCIT. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal found procedural lapses in both the assessment and appellate proceedings, including the denial of a personal hearing and potential issues with jurisdiction transfer. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the addition. It found that the DVO's valuation was not reliable as it used comparable sale instances of flats instead of land, and the seized documents were not relied upon by the AO for the addition. Furthermore, no evidence of actual expenditure exceeding recorded amounts was found.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the loan as bogus based solely on an affidavit from a third party, without allowing cross-examination. The loan transaction was found to be through banking channels, with interest paid and TDS deducted, and the loan was repaid, thus establishing its genuineness.
The assessee's counsel filed an application to withdraw the appeal because the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) scheme, 2024. The assessee paid the settlement amount as per the scheme.
The Tribunal held that Section 26 of the Act governs the taxation of rental income from co-owned property with determinate shares, making Section 167B inapplicable. However, to ensure compliance with Section 167B, it was necessary to verify the tax rates of individual co-owners.
The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the two appeals, as the Departmental Representative did not object.
The Tribunal held that Section 26 of the Act governs the taxation of rental income from co-owned property with determinate shares, making Section 167B inapplicable. However, to ensure compliance with Section 167B, it was necessary to verify the tax rates of individual co-owners.
The Tribunal allowed the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the two appeals, as the Departmental Representative did not object.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee subsequently filed the return and paid all due taxes after the Section 148 notice, and had promptly rectified the short deduction, no penalty under Section 270A for misreporting of income is leviable in this case. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was passed without considering the merits of the case. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the very basis for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was on an incorrect presumption of facts. The assessment order did not point to any specific sale deed, property purchased, seller's name, or details of subsequent sale and profit. The assessee's categorical submission that no investment was made in the 'Reevera' scheme, coupled with the absence of specific details in the assessment records regarding the property, sale deed, and profit calculation, led the Tribunal to conclude that the reassessment proceedings were flawed. Therefore, the order passed under Section 147 was liable to be set aside. The Tribunal did not explicitly address grounds 2, 3, and 4 concerning procedural aspects like PCIT approval, Section 153C notice, reliance on third-party documents, and cross-examination, as the primary issue of incorrect factual basis for reopening was decisive.