ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received any communication/notice u/s.250 of the Act, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper consideration. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessee had been awarded six opportunities to be heard but failed to comply with notices or provide rebuttals. Despite the Assessee's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with notices from the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The penalty was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission paid to 16 old parties was not justified as it was a recurring issue covered by previous favourable orders. The disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be deleted if no exempt income was earned. The disallowance of consultancy charges was deleted based on additional evidence and the AO's remand report confirming the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's method of reducing additional depreciation from WDV before computing normal depreciation was incorrect. The existing method followed by the assessee and accepted by the department was in line with the IT return utility and tax audit report. Thus, there was no error prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to comply with notices and delayed filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The penalty levied was deleted, but the AO was at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission paid to 16 foreign agents was not justified as these were old parties and the issue was covered by previous orders in favour of the assessee. For the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal directed deletion if the assessee had no exempt income, following High Court decisions. The disallowance of consultancy charges was deleted as the AO's remand report did not dispute the expenditure.

The Tribunal disposed of both appeals, subject to the assessee paying the settlement amount of tax arrears as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not correct in levying the penalty as the assessee had not failed to comply with the notices and had sought for necessary documents. The penalty was cancelled.

The tribunal noted that the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not undertaken by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Ld.CIT(A) for a complete adjudication of the issues.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not complied with notices issued by the authorities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment with a cost of Rs. 3000/-.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order had been issued. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of subject to the payment of the settlement amount.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal. The Revenue had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not complied even before the Assessing Officer and the matter was being remanded for de-novo assessment in the interest of justice, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The penalty levied was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the assessee's submissions or providing an opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. It was observed that the assessee had demonstrated that no unsecured loan was taken, and the onus was on the department to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption solely on the ground of not filing the original return is not in accordance with the law. Section 139(4C) mandates filing of returns in specific circumstances but does not provide for denial of exemption for not filing the original return.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The Pr.CIT's finding that the AO failed to examine the interest expenses under Section 57(iii) was not supported by the record. The issue of genuineness, raised by the Pr.CIT based on TDS deduction, was not a valid ground for revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the remaining forms were awaited. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was based on an incorrect assumption of facts and that the issue of the loan was already examined in detail during the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the assessee had taken the accommodation entry loan.

The Tribunal held that at the relevant time, the issue regarding the deduction of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC when deposited after the due date but before the filing of the return was debatable. Given the contrary decisions from various courts and the absence of a binding jurisdictional High Court decision against the assessee, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and had received approval. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to properly examine the material and explanations submitted by the assessee, relying on generalized assumptions instead. The CIT(E)'s order was found to be legally untenable.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal solely on the point of limitation without adjudicating the merits, and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, is against the Principle of Natural Justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that while the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is generally mandatory, in cases where the return is filed unreasonably late, leaving no scope for scrutiny, the non-issuance of such a notice is not fatal to the assessment. However, regarding the appeals for both years, the Tribunal found that the additions were confirmed without giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's statement about the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated that the Rs. 1 crore invested in FDs was sourced from their business income in the UAE, supported by identical evidence that was previously accepted by the AO for explaining investment in immovable property. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal recorded the statement of the assessee regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that while issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is generally mandatory, it is not fatal to the assessment if the return was filed unreasonably late, leaving no scope for scrutiny. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity of hearing and that additional evidences were not considered, thus restoring the matter to the AO for reconsideration after giving due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO for delayed payment of employees' PF/ESIC contribution was confirmed, relying on the Finance Act, 2021 amendments and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that while Section 54 deductions have been allowed when property is bought in a wife or daughter's name, the situation with a mother, who is now deceased, requires further clarity on ownership transmission. The Tribunal found factual discrepancies and lack of clarity regarding ultimate ownership.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal observed that the assessee had not complied even before the Assessing Officer and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B, while mandatory, is procedural in nature, especially after amendments to the Finance Act. The Tribunal followed a Gujarat High Court decision which stated that if the audit report is available before assessment proceedings, the requirement of law is satisfied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with notices even before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with the condition that the assessee must comply with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could have filed the application for final approval within the extended period granted for registration under Section 12A, and rejection solely on the ground of delay was not justified.

The Tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a non-existing entity, after a merger, is a nullity in the eyes of law. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act on the non-existent entity is invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify which particular documents, as per Rule 10D, were not maintained by the assessee. The TPO also did not find any default in maintenance of documents. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271AA was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is deterrent in nature and not for revenue generation. It noted that the Assessing Officer has remedies like best judgment assessment. The Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- for one default, citing a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the restriction of incentive payment to 11% of net profit, as applicable to public limited companies, is not applicable to the assessee, a private limited company. The disallowance of interest on delayed TDS was confirmed due to lack of supporting material.

The Tribunal noted persistent non-compliance by the assessee, including delays in filing appeals, failure to rectify defects, and absence from multiple hearings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not being effectively prosecuted.

The Tribunal held that persistent non-compliance and failure to prosecute the appeals indicated the assessee's lack of interest. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine for non-prosecution and non-compliance.