Loading ITAT cases…
275 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal observed that additional evidence regarding the source of funds (Rs.49,00,000/- from the father-in-law to the wife's bank account, who was the first buyer) was submitted to the CIT(A), including the father-in-law's ITR. The CIT(A) rejected this evidence without calling for a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence and re-adjudicate.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the subsequent grant of Section 80G(5) registration resolved the original grievance.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, with a direction to consider initiating penalty proceedings during the de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submissions but found no reasonable explanation for the non-compliance before the CIT(E). It noted that the assessee was not careful in filing the application as required documents were not attached, and subsequently, no compliance was made to the notices. Despite this, the Tribunal deemed it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. Subject to the payment of this cost, the CIT(E) was directed to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details and documents and thereafter re-adjudicate the application. The assessee was also directed to comply with the CIT(E)'s requirements. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT condoned the 207-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's semi-literate status and lack of legal knowledge. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding the nature of the land. A cost of ₹5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance at prior stages, payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, as a condition for the hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee-trust had indeed failed to produce substantial documents before the CIT(E). Considering the Ld. Counsel's prayer for an opportunity, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, allowing the assessee to submit further explanations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 19 days, satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal (IT(SS)A No. 41/Ahd/2024) for AY 2018-19 due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 05/2024. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal (IT(SS)A No. 29/Ahd/2024) for AY 2018-19, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as unsecured loan from Jignesh A. Dhamecha was justified due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence proving the lender's genuineness and creditworthiness. The corresponding interest expense addition was also confirmed. The assessee's appeal (ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2024) for AY 2019-20 was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the addition of Rs. 3,07,368/- as interest on unsecured loans. The appeal filed by Safari Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1016/Ahd/2024) for AY 2019-20 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the reduction of Rs. 23,01,432/- in addition under Section 43CA and to decide as per law, considering the DVO's report for the addition of Rs. 1,92,206/- under Section 43CA. The ratio is that the burden to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans lies with the assessee, and failure to do so justifies additions under Section 68.
The tribunal restored the quantum addition matter (Rs. 25 lakhs) to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide supporting evidence. Consequently, the appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO. The ground challenging the Section 148 notice was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was already quashed by the Tribunal, the consequential assessment order passed by the AO had no legal standing. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the long-term capital gains earned by the assessee were genuine. The tribunal found that the AO failed to establish a direct link between the assessee and any alleged accommodation entry provider, did not disprove the genuineness of the transactions, and denied the assessee the right to cross-examination, which vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue had participated in and accepted the Resolution Plan before the NCLT, which approved the plan, extinguishing all outstanding liabilities. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment orders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the Revenue's application u/s 154.
The tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, finding it unintentional due to the Revenue's failure to prove valid service of notices. Consequently, the impugned ex-parte orders were set aside, and both matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits after providing the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether MAT credit includes surcharge and education cess was debatable. Therefore, the AO was not justified in using Section 154 to reduce the credit which was allowed in the original assessment.
The Tribunal observed that while the lower authorities failed to adequately verify the assessee's submissions, the assessee also failed to present cogent documentary evidence before the ITAT. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, with directions to verify all evidence submitted or to be submitted afresh, and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 153 days in filing the appeals is condoned, relying on the ratio laid down in Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause due to genuine procedural circumstances and technical difficulties. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that the AO's calculation of Rs. 20,10,886/- as unexplained expenditure was based on aggregating only positive balances from the seized diary, ignoring negative balances and without third-party verification. The Tribunal noted that the total accounted expenditure of Rs. 36.19 lakhs was higher than the professional valuer's estimate of Rs. 26.66 lakhs. Considering the totality of evidence, including confirmations filed by the assessee and the absence of cross-verification by the AO, the Tribunal determined that a restricted addition equivalent to 25% of the net alleged unaccounted expenditure would be fair and reasonable. This resulted in a sustainable addition of Rs. 4,65,000/- for AY 2015-16. The protective addition for AY 2016-17 was deleted entirely. The CIT(A)'s order was modified accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee's affidavit without proper inquiry. The addition for cash deposits could not be sustained without a thorough investigation into the beneficial ownership and fund trail.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case did not strictly fall under the cited sub-clause, but being provisionally registered, it could apply under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The Tribunal also noted that the provision should be interpreted liberally.
The Tribunal found that while two components of the contract income were duly examined and accounted for, the AO failed to conduct requisite third-party verification for a disputed receipt of Rs.49,76,868/- from Social Forestry Division, which the assessee denied. The Tribunal modified the PCIT's order, directing the AO to re-adjudicate only this specific disputed contract receipt after carrying out the necessary verification from Social Forestry Division.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified and upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the sale deed for the land was executed for Rs. 20 Crores, and no evidence was found during the search indicating any additional amount received from the buyer, Shri Sandeep Narshinbhai Patel. The sole basis for the AO's addition was the WhatsApp chat, which was a quotation of a rate to a third party (Shri Kaushalbhai) with whom no transaction materialized. The Tribunal noted that the agreement to sell with Shri Sandeep Narshinbhai Patel predated the WhatsApp chat. The Tribunal emphasized that an addition under the Act must be supported by tangible and conclusive evidence, which was absent in this case. Reliance on an isolated WhatsApp chat without corroboration was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not refer the matter to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value and that no evidence of receipt of extra consideration was found. The burden was on the AO to prove the receipt of on-money, which he failed to do. The buyer had also not admitted any on-money payment. Therefore, the addition was based on suspicion and assumption. The Tribunal allowed grounds of appeal No. 2 and 3 of the Revenue, which pertained to the deletion of the addition, indicating that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was correct.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's other two properties were under development, involving demolition, thus indicating no rental income for the year. It held that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view in the original assessment under Section 143(3) and the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, when the department was explicitly aware of the assessee's death and failed to implead the legal representatives, is invalid and cannot be considered a curable defect under Section 292B. Citing the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal ruled that the AO's failure to take corrective measures rendered the assessment bad in law, and therefore, it was quashed.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the long-term capital gains earned by the assessee were genuine. The tribunal found that the AO failed to establish a direct link between the assessee and any alleged accommodation entry provider, did not disprove the genuineness of the transactions, and denied the assessee the right to cross-examination, which vitiated the proceedings.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason for the delay to be genuine. Upon perusal of the bank statement and explanations provided by the assessee's A.R. regarding withdrawals and deposits, the tribunal found that the credit entries and cash deposits were properly explained. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to participate promptly in the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 717-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bona fide. It noted that the disallowance was due to a clerical error in the tax audit report, not a substantive issue with payment. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the actual payment dates of the TDS amount, considering the new evidence provided by the assessee and the tax auditor's certificate.
The Tribunal held that the omission to file Form 10-IC was a procedural lapse and not a substantive default, especially since the assessee was unaware of the demand until after the condonation window had closed. The substantive compliance through ITR and tax audit report was deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal found that the non-compliance was unintentional because the notices were sent to an old address, making the assessee unaware. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that it was not a suitable case for levying penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and set them aside.
The Tribunal noted that the reopening relied on unverified third-party information and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cross-examination opportunities or point out specific defects in the books. However, acknowledging the assessee's presence on a list of suspicious dealers, the Tribunal reduced the estimated income to 1% of the total alleged transactions (Rs.2,06,68,791/-), directing a net addition of Rs.2,00,892/- after allowing credit for already declared profit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the previous consultant's negligence. It found the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits—supported by a cash book for business income and an affidavit with donor's bank statement for the gift—to be reasonable, verifiable, and substantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal held the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal found that the non-compliance was unintentional because the notices were sent to an old address, making the assessee unaware. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that it was not a suitable case for levying penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and set them aside.
The Tribunal held that the deposits made directly by debtors into the assessee's bank account, representing their due payments, do not constitute unexplained cash credit under Section 68. However, the disallowance of interest on delayed TDS payment was upheld as not allowable under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss Riddhi Siddhi's appeals, confirming the additions for unsecured loans and related interest due to the assessee's failure to prove genuineness. For Safari Biotech, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-verify the property valuation under Section 43CA based on documentary evidence and DVO's report.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. After reviewing the complete details of withdrawals and various income sources provided by the assessee, including cash withdrawals, agricultural income, and sale of milk, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient funds to make the bank deposits. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, finding it unintentional due to the Revenue's failure to prove valid service of notices. Consequently, the impugned ex-parte orders were set aside, and both matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits after providing the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that while some additions were justified, the entire amount was not conclusively established. They applied a calibrated 25% estimation to the alleged unaccounted expenditure, considering various factors like vendor confirmations and the absence of AO's verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO had properly verified the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share transactions during re-assessment, examining all necessary documents. The re-assessment order was therefore neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was based on a mere second opinion, which is not a valid ground.
The tribunal restored the quantum addition matter (Rs. 25 lakhs) to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide supporting evidence. Consequently, the appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO. The ground challenging the Section 148 notice was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case did not strictly fall under the cited sub-clause, but being provisionally registered, it could apply under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The Tribunal also noted that the provision should be interpreted liberally.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss Riddhi Siddhi's appeals, confirming the additions for unsecured loans and related interest due to the assessee's failure to prove genuineness. For Safari Biotech, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-verify the property valuation under Section 43CA based on documentary evidence and DVO's report.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation, by virtue of section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, becomes current year's depreciation and can be set off against income under any head, including 'Income from other sources'. The requirement that business must be carried on during the relevant previous year is not a condition precedent for invoking section 32(2), nor does the absence of business income restrict such adjustment. The Tribunal found that the interpretation adopted by the lower authorities in denying the set-off solely on the ground of non-carrying on of business was contrary to the scheme of the Act and judicially settled law. Respectfully following the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. and CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd., and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. SPEL Semiconductor Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 2,46,533/- against the income assessed for the year under consideration. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set-off.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only to sums credited during the relevant previous year, not to opening balances brought forward from prior years. It found that the AO and CIT(A) erred by not appreciating this legal position and the fact that the business genuineness and asset ownership were not disputed. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deemed unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific details on how the assessee was involved in price manipulation or why the claim of Long Term Capital Gain was not proper, despite the assessee submitting complete documentation including source of purchase funds, broker contract notes, and proof of STT payment. Given the lack of specific findings by the revenue authorities, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal (IT(SS)A No. 41/Ahd/2024) for AY 2018-19 due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 05/2024. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal (IT(SS)A No. 29/Ahd/2024) for AY 2018-19, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as unsecured loan from Jignesh A. Dhamecha was justified due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence proving the lender's genuineness and creditworthiness. The corresponding interest expense addition was also confirmed. The assessee's appeal (ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2024) for AY 2019-20 was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the addition of Rs. 3,07,368/- as interest on unsecured loans. The appeal filed by Safari Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1016/Ahd/2024) for AY 2019-20 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the reduction of Rs. 23,01,432/- in addition under Section 43CA and to decide as per law, considering the DVO's report for the addition of Rs. 1,92,206/- under Section 43CA. The ratio is that the burden to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans lies with the assessee, and failure to do so justifies additions under Section 68.
The Tribunal found that the non-compliance was unintentional because the notices were sent to an old address, making the assessee unaware. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that it was not a suitable case for levying penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and set them aside.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both the assessment and CIT(A) appeal were completed ex-parte. In the interest of justice and to afford the assessee an opportunity to present necessary evidence, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains were duly invested and eligible for deduction under Section 54EC. Consequently, no tax liability arises on this addition for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 233-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the Assessing Officer committed a fundamental jurisdictional error by initiating proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 but framing the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 for a transaction that occurred in F.Y. 2014-15. As the income was taxed in an incorrect assessment year and the assessee's ownership of the property or receipt of consideration was not proven, the reassessment order was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits. The assessee, engaged in the resale of building material, maintained audited books under Section 44AB and was subject to VAT scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were out of genuine cash sales, duly recorded in the books, supported by cash memos and invoices, and reflected in VAT returns. The audit under VAT and finalization in Form 304 corroborated the genuineness. The Tribunal noted a growth in business activity and consistent cash inflows. The assessee had furnished details of parties from whom cash exceeding ₹2 lakh was received, along with dates, amounts, and invoices, and the AO made no inquiries to disprove this. The Tribunal stated that once prima facie evidence is produced, the burden shifts to the Department to rebut it. The increase in cash sales during the festive season was considered plausible for the business. The opening cash balance discrepancy was attributed to a clerical error. Therefore, the addition of ₹1,01,94,386/- under Section 68 was deleted. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. The Counsel for the assessee conceded that he had nothing to state in the matter and acknowledged that both in facts and in law, there was no mistake on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the rectification of the original order. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the rectification under Section 154 was valid as it corrected a mistake apparent from the record. The reasoning was that the assessee's own representative accepted the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order and the AO's rectification. Therefore, the addition of ₹1,21,24,288/- was confirmed as part of the rectified assessment. No issue was expressly left undecided.