ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, ruling that Form 3CL is a statutory prerequisite for claiming a deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the specific assessment year, and its absence could not be faulted. It noted that the ongoing High Court matter does not warrant setting aside the ITAT order, as Section 153(6) provides for giving effect to court orders at a later stage. The alternative claim under Section 35(1) was also rejected.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the facts, held that an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs could be attributed to agricultural activities, Rs. 4 Lacs to family savings (father, wife, mother), and Rs. 2 Lacs to 'chandla' received during a sister's marriage and own savings. Thus, a total of Rs. 13 Lacs was treated as explained.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to participate in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they are unable to avail the benefits of the scheme for any bonafide reasons.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition. It noted that an identical addition made in the hands of a co-owner of the same land was previously deleted by the ITAT (Ahmedabad Bench) on the grounds that the difference between the fair market value and the purchase consideration (approximately 10%) was not a material difference. The ITAT applied the same reasoning, finding the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessees an opportunity to present their cases. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the Ld.CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The order of the CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the claimed deduction under Section 80GGC, confirming that the donations were 'bogus' and a 'colourable device' to evade tax liability. It found no fresh material from the assessee to deviate from the findings of the lower authorities, which had concluded that the bank accounts of the political parties were used for accommodation entries and funds were returned to donors.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment order passed by the lower authorities. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal acknowledged a delay in filing the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee. The CIT(E) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation were not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for non-compliance, and there was no infirmity pointed out by the AO or CIT(A) in the explanation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide proper opportunity to the assessee in ITA No.2059/Ahd/2024, thus remanding the matter for proper adjudication after verifying documentary evidence. For ITA No.2060/Ahd/2024, the Tribunal found the assessee's appeal against their own action unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits totaling Rs.11,70,500/-, which included cash sales and withdrawals from the same bank, through a reconciliation statement. Since these explanations were not properly considered, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs.11,02,000/- addition confirmed by the CIT(A).

Considering the assessee's choice to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal for revival if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the key statements used by the AO were not confronted to the assessee, and the supplier's representative denied the transactions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly held that the additions made did not survive due to lack of evidence and proper procedure.

The Tribunal found that the deposits were from milk sales and agricultural income, with no substantial increase compared to earlier years. Concluding that the CIT(A) was incorrect, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the matter required examination at the primary level. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a de novo order after a thorough examination of the bank account.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- related to on-money receipts from property sales, finding it to be supported by evidence and the assessee's statement. However, for the Rs.1,17,05,820/- regarding business receipts, the Tribunal observed that the AO failed to properly investigate whether the amount was turnover or net income, despite the assessee's contention. This part of the addition was thus set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that this was the 25th hearing of the appeal and no one appeared for the assessee. Information was received that the legal representative had expired. Since the appeal could not be prosecuted, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the matter was not examined on merits and denying an opportunity for hearing would cause injustice. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee another opportunity to present facts and evidence regarding the additions made, particularly concerning cash deposits during demonetisation.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to restore it if the scheme application was not entertained.

The Tribunal noted that this was the 16th hearing and the appeal was adjourned multiple times. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not offered a video hearing despite requesting it. Therefore, to provide natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide a video hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and not on any new material or tangible evidence. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, applying the principle of natural justice, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment, granting the assessee one final opportunity to produce all necessary details and documents on merits, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer failed to allow cross-examination of key witnesses and unjustly rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) without valid reasons. It was found that no direct nexus was established between the alleged unaccounted transactions and the assessee, and none of the concerned parties admitted the seized documents were related to the assessee's unaccounted purchases. Thus, the additions made by the AO were deemed unsustainable.

For ITA No.2059/Ahd/2024, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to submit documentary evidence. Therefore, this appeal was remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication. For ITA No.2060/Ahd/2024, the Tribunal held that the assessee cannot challenge an action initiated by itself, hence this appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order non-speaking and without proper reasoning for disbelieving the assessee's detailed explanation regarding the source of cash from charcoal trading and agricultural income. Consequently, the ITAT accepted the assessee's substantiated evidence and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,18,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessees an opportunity to present their cases. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Recording the submission, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the scheme application is not entertained.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal for revival if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices from the CIT(A) on multiple occasions. However, considering the assessee's plea of disability and the request for an opportunity, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the matter needed examination at a primary level and decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to pass a fresh order after thoroughly examining the bank account in totality.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard before the adjustments were made under Section 143(1). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the name mismatch was a genuine mistake and had been rectified. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to provide fresh opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had not considered the evidence filed by the applicant. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration and to grant an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal ruled that the failure to file Form 10-IE within the prescribed time in the impugned year does not invalidate the assessee's option, as the mandate for filing Form 10-IE is directory. Since the option was not invalidated under Section 115BAC(2) in the preceding year, there was no requirement for fresh filing. The denial of the new tax regime benefit was deemed contrary to law, and the AO was directed to allow the assessee's option.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay, as the assessee had adduced sufficient cause. Furthermore, the addition of Rs.43,49,650/- was unsustainable as the bank accounts in question did not belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the facts and evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to provide credible evidence to establish that the transactions were fictitious or involved accommodation entries. Consequently, the additions made under Section 69A were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the death of the assessee's counsel as a reasonable cause. The appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant another opportunity for compliance and re-adjudicate the matters on their merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, accepting the explanation for non-compliance, set aside both appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee another opportunity and decide the matters on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, by virtue of its sub-contractor status and the explanation to Section 80IA(4) introduced retrospectively, was not eligible for the deduction. The issue regarding Section 40(a)(ia) was set aside for further verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's agreement itself described it as a sub-contractor, and the Explanation to Section 80IA(4) excludes works contracts from eligibility. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify payment details to avoid double taxation regarding the TDS disallowance. Ultimately, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issues to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not correct in treating the entire cash deposit as unexplained income without considering debit transactions. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to examine the suppression of income and verify the disclosed commission income, directing estimation of unrecorded income based on the profit ratio of recorded transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid as it was passed in the name of a deceased person. The AO was aware of the assessee's death, and therefore, subsequent notices should have been issued to the legal heir.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the facts and evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to provide credible evidence to establish that the transactions were fictitious or involved accommodation entries. Consequently, the additions made under Section 69A were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and held that the failure to file Form No.10-IE within the prescribed due date, especially for subsequent years when the option was already validly exercised, does not invalidate the assessee's claim. The requirement to file Form No.10-IE is merely directory. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the assessee the benefit of the new tax regime under Section 115BAC.

The Tribunal held that the AO had no basis to make the addition as the amount was received and returned on the same day. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without examining merits. The Tribunal also noted that additions were made in the hands of the fund provider.

The Tribunal observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) examined the detailed peak credit computation and bank statements provided by the assessee, rejecting the claim summarily without verification. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that it is mandatory for fact-finding authorities to examine all documentary evidence and record a reasoned finding. Therefore, the rejection of the assessee's claim without due verification was unsustainable.

The Tribunal ruled that the nature of land as agricultural cannot be determined solely by the absence of agricultural activity in the year of sale if land revenue records indicate otherwise and past activities existed. The Tribunal found the PCIT's exercise of revisionary powers under Section 263 unjustified, as the PCIT did not adequately address the assessee's contention regarding the land's location outside municipal limits. Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, observing that since the CIT(A) had already held the assessee eligible for a 100% deduction under Section 80P, any increase in income from the disallowances would not lead to additional tax liability. Therefore, the assessee had no further grievance, making the appeal infructuous.