Loading ITAT cases…
280 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal, based on the majority opinion of the Accountant Member and the Third Member, held that in cases of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A. All pending assessments/reassessments stand abated. Crucially, for unabated/completed assessments, if any incriminating material is found/unearthed, the AO can assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' by considering both the incriminating material and other material available with the AO, including income declared in returns. However, if no incriminating material is unearthed in completed/unabated assessments, the AO cannot make additions based on other material. Such completed assessments can only be re-opened under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. The appeals filed by the Department are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the Assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The additions made on the basis of incriminating material as well as other materials are set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination on merits.
The Tribunal, based on the majority opinion of the Accountant Member and the Third Member, held that in cases of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A. All pending assessments/reassessments stand abated. Crucially, for unabated/completed assessments, if any incriminating material is found/unearthed, the AO can assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' by considering both the incriminating material and other material available with the AO, including income declared in returns. However, if no incriminating material is unearthed in completed/unabated assessments, the AO cannot make additions based on other material. Such completed assessments can only be re-opened under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. The appeals filed by the Department are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the Assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The additions made on the basis of incriminating material as well as other materials are set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination on merits.
The Tribunal, based on the majority opinion of the Accountant Member and the Third Member, held that in cases of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A. All pending assessments/reassessments stand abated. Crucially, for unabated/completed assessments, if any incriminating material is found/unearthed, the AO can assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' by considering both the incriminating material and other material available with the AO, including income declared in returns. However, if no incriminating material is unearthed in completed/unabated assessments, the AO cannot make additions based on other material. Such completed assessments can only be re-opened under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. The appeals filed by the Department are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the Assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The additions made on the basis of incriminating material as well as other materials are set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Based on the statements from both parties, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, based on the majority opinion of the Accountant Member and the Third Member, held that in cases of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A. All pending assessments/reassessments stand abated. Crucially, for unabated/completed assessments, if any incriminating material is found/unearthed, the AO can assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' by considering both the incriminating material and other material available with the AO, including income declared in returns. However, if no incriminating material is unearthed in completed/unabated assessments, the AO cannot make additions based on other material. Such completed assessments can only be re-opened under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. The appeals filed by the Department are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the Assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The additions made on the basis of incriminating material as well as other materials are set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record independent reasons for reopening the assessment, relying on 'borrowed satisfaction' from an investigation wing report without verification. The reassessment notice was found to be invalid.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not comply with lower authorities but also noted that the Assessing Officer may not have correctly treated all deposits as income. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(E)'s order. The CIT(E) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the explanation for non-compliance was not considered reasonable, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(E) to grant another opportunity for hearing after the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the allowability of a material expenditure item constituted a lapse in the assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to submit replies to notices from both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance of Rs.13,32,598/- from the preceding year was duly examined and accepted. The assessee had also provided reconciliation showing cash in excess of deposits. Therefore, the addition for unexplained cash deposits could not be sustained.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not comply with lower authorities but also noted that the Assessing Officer may not have correctly treated all deposits as income. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was not reasonable, especially since the application was e-filed. However, to provide an opportunity, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the crucial issue was whether the Department's appeal was liable to be dismissed and no outstanding demand would survive against the assessee, given that the Department had not made any claim before the NCLT for the outstanding demand. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished. This principle was reiterated in subsequent judgments of the Delhi High Court and ITAT. In the present case, the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan on February 6, 2023, and the Department had not filed any claim for recovery of tax demand with respect to the outstanding demand against the assessee. Therefore, in light of the judicial precedents, the Department cannot claim or recover arrears that accrued prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 270A is not leviable. The assessee's claim for deduction of Health and Education Cess was made based on existing legal interpretations and supported by judicial pronouncements at the time of filing the return. There was no allegation of concealment or suppression of facts. The assessee voluntarily surrendered the claim upon becoming aware of the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed before the notification of Rule 132, which prescribed the procedure for section 155(18), making the remedy practically unavailable to the assessee at that stage. The maxim 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' was applied. The Tribunal relied on the principle that a bona fide claim based on legal interpretation, even if later found unsustainable due to retrospective amendment, does not attract penalty, citing CIT v. Yahoo India (P.) Ltd. The penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the admitted factual position is that the Income Tax Department did not make any claim against the assessee before the NCLT in respect of its outstanding demand. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and other subsequent judgments, the Tribunal noted that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished. The Department's argument that as the State exchequer, it cannot be bound by the Resolution Process provisions of the IBC was rejected. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Department cannot claim and recover arrears that accrued prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was not reasonable, especially since the application was e-filed. However, to provide an opportunity, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider substantial withdrawals made by the assessee from the bank accounts. Considering the large additions made and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter for both assessment years to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, allowing the assessee to provide evidence. This restoration is conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each assessment year to the Prime Minister Relief Fund due to past non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation for the source of investment, supported by evidence and admitted facts of disclosed income. The CIT(A) had made incorrect factual findings in rejecting the explanation.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) to consider the application afresh. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue had provided evidence of a prior intimation sent to the assessee's registered email address. This email address was also registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and had been deemed valid in a previous case.
The Tribunal noted that notices were issued to the assessee multiple times to submit details regarding undisclosed income, but the assessee failed to reply. Despite the assessee's non-compliance and filing of an adjournment application, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for benefits under Article 22 of the DTAA. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the tax liability.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT's order and directing the CIT to grant registration after the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 5,000 and provides the necessary documents. The CIT is to give one more opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider substantial withdrawals made by the assessee from the bank accounts. Considering the large additions made and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter for both assessment years to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, allowing the assessee to provide evidence. This restoration is conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each assessment year to the Prime Minister Relief Fund due to past non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the mandatory jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessee filing a return. The system failure cited by the AO did not absolve them of their statutory duty.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration upon payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, considering the assessee's willingness to furnish all required documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground (clerical mistake in mentioning Section 143(1) instead of 143(3) read with 144B). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order u/s 263 was a nullity because the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing, and the PCIT proceeded to pass the order without proper procedural compliance. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal held that it is a well-settled legal principle that if the quantum additions, which formed the basis for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are deleted, then the penalty itself is liable to be deleted. This is because the very foundation for the penalty imposition has been nullified. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who had deleted the penalty on the ground that the ITAT had already deleted the underlying quantum additions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard through video conferencing, which violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a sufficient nexus between the interest-bearing borrowings and the interest-earning advances, supported by documentary evidence. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the serious discrepancies highlighted by the AO, particularly regarding related party transactions and the genuineness of purchases and sales. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer finds no escapement of income on the basis of which jurisdiction was assumed under Section 147, he loses jurisdiction to make any other addition or disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity of being heard due to an email address mismatch, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was therefore set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee had decided to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested an adjournment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee was unrepresented before the CIT(A) and has now produced supporting documents like confirmation, bank statement, and ITR of the lender, the Tribunal restored the issue of the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the entire land holding of the assessee (including jointly owned land) and the crop loans taken for agricultural activities. The Tribunal attributed approximately Rs. 14 lakhs to agricultural income and confirmed the remaining addition.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a video hearing before the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a video hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the mandatory jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessee filing a return. The system failure cited by the AO did not absolve them of their statutory duty.
The Tribunal condoned the 385-day delay, finding sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It held that the cash deposits attributed to agricultural income, supported by bills, could not be rejected merely due to non-response to Section 133(6) notices. It also accepted the source from labour contracting income, noting its acceptance by the AO in the return of income. However, the claim for opening cash balance was rejected. The Tribunal directed the deletion of addition to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs, attributing it to agricultural and labour contracting income.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer did not sustain. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed confirmation copies of sale bills and ledger accounts, but the AO's remark that these were fabricated was not substantiated. The assessee had provided details of confirmations, sales invoices, stock registers, and PAN cards of proprietors. The accounting entries were duly recorded in the assessee's books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the observation of the AO and CIT(A) that the documents were fabricated was not established by the revenue authorities, and merely rejecting the evidence filed by the assessee cannot be the sole criterion for making an addition. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Shri Sanand Textile Industries Limited vs. DCIT, which held that Section 68 cannot be attracted if the assessee explains the impugned amount as sales and the authorities do not doubt it. The Tribunal also relied on the decision in Vishal Exports, affirmed by the Gujarat High Court, which stated that adding sales realization once again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It noted the submission that due to the ignorance of the trustees, the requisite details were not filed within the stipulated time before the CIT(E), and that the applicant trusts actually run educational institutes, as reflected in their audit reports. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is to pass an order taking into account the evidences filed by the applicant trusts and provide them an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific issue of whether the trusts were running educational institutions was not definitively decided by the Tribunal but was to be re-examined by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions for both assessment years. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning that firstly, the HDFC Bank account in question did not belong to the assessee but to M/s. Greendiam Exim Pvt. Ltd. Secondly, a similar addition concerning cash deposits in that account had already been made in the regular assessment of M/s. Greendiam Exim Pvt. Ltd. and was subsequently deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) for the company, accepting the explanation of cash sales. Therefore, making the same addition in the assessee's hands would constitute double taxation, which is not permissible. Thirdly, the Tribunal concurred that the Assessing Officer had not provided any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the assessee had deposited the amount from his own undisclosed income. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Department's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not consider the documents filed. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company's status was 'strike off' and it had not been revived. As per the Companies Act, a dissolved company ceases to operate, except for settling liabilities. Since the company was dissolved, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already taxed the entire cash flow from the seized documents in the hands of Prakash M. Sanghvi, preventing double taxation. The additions made in the hands of the present assessees were deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already taxed the entire cash flow from the seized documents in the hands of Prakash M. Sanghvi, preventing double taxation. The additions made in the hands of the present assessees were deemed unwarranted.