Loading ITAT cases…
257 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on mere presumptions and assumptions. The WhatsApp chat was found from an unconnected third party, exchanged a year after the transaction, and was not corroborated by any independent inquiry or cross-examination.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was granted as an additional opportunity to the assessee, who claimed non-compliance was due to a former consultant's inaction and had new Form 26A certificates, subject to a cost deposit of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan and the authenticity of the purchases. The additions were not supported by law or facts.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal distinguished between 'lack of enquiry' and 'adequate enquiry but adoption of one plausible view'. It found that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, including issuing notices under section 142(1), confronting the assessee with seized documents and statements, and obtaining explanations, before consciously accepting the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted that the same incriminating material had already been subjected to taxation in AY 2023-24, safeguarding the revenue's interests and negating prejudice. The Tribunal relied on the principle laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (SC) and other precedents, stating that where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view after enquiry, the order cannot be branded as erroneous merely because the Commissioner holds another opinion. Consequently, the impugned revisionary orders passed by the PCIT were quashed. The Tribunal found that Explanation 2 to section 263 did not assist the revenue as it was a case of difference of opinion on the adequacy of enquiry, not a lack of enquiry. The issue of prejudice to the revenue was also not demonstrated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee-trusts were not given sufficient opportunity to present substantial documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications, with directions to take into account any submissions and explanations provided by the assessees.
The Tribunal held that while the assessment order was not void ab initio as the AO was unaware of the death, it was appropriate to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. This would allow for the legal heirs to be brought on record and provide them with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee-trusts were not given sufficient opportunity to present substantial documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications, with directions to take into account any submissions and explanations provided by the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on mere presumptions and assumptions. The WhatsApp chat was found from an unconnected third party, exchanged a year after the transaction, and was not corroborated by any independent inquiry or cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and taken a plausible view based on the material available. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was based on a difference of opinion rather than a lack of enquiry, and no prejudice to revenue was demonstrated.
The Tribunal found that the reasons cited by the assessee in their affidavit, including the hospitalization of the responsible manager due to COVID-19, disruption in professional arrangements, and pandemic-related restrictions, were genuine. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable. It was clarified that advance tax liability arises on admitted income, not on disputed additions. Therefore, the assessee was not required to pay advance tax.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on mere presumptions and assumptions. The WhatsApp chat was found from an unconnected third party, exchanged a year after the transaction, and was not corroborated by any independent inquiry or cross-examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's accounting method for income recognition and treatment of advances was appropriate, and that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had thoroughly verified the reconciliation provided. Concluding that the issue required further factual examination, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the return of income on 30.03.2014, prior to the issuance of the Section 148 notice. Since the foundational jurisdictional fact for reopening (that no return was filed) was factually incorrect, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was held to be invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire assessment was quashed, rendering the other grounds challenging the additions academic.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The AO is directed to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish all supporting evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the sources of the cash deposit, including Rs.8,00,000 from cash withdrawals for his daughter's marriage, Rs.89,100 from cash rent received, and Rs.2,10,900 from personal savings. After reviewing bank statements and considering the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that no addition under Section 69A was warranted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessment order was not void ab initio as the AO was unaware of the death, it was appropriate to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. This would allow for the legal heirs to be brought on record and provide them with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal distinguished between 'lack of enquiry' and 'adequate enquiry but adoption of one plausible view'. It found that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, including issuing notices under section 142(1), confronting the assessee with seized documents and statements, and obtaining explanations, before consciously accepting the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted that the same incriminating material had already been subjected to taxation in AY 2023-24, safeguarding the revenue's interests and negating prejudice. The Tribunal relied on the principle laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (SC) and other precedents, stating that where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view after enquiry, the order cannot be branded as erroneous merely because the Commissioner holds another opinion. Consequently, the impugned revisionary orders passed by the PCIT were quashed. The Tribunal found that Explanation 2 to section 263 did not assist the revenue as it was a case of difference of opinion on the adequacy of enquiry, not a lack of enquiry. The issue of prejudice to the revenue was also not demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and taken a plausible view based on the material available. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was based on a difference of opinion rather than a lack of enquiry, and no prejudice to revenue was demonstrated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. On the first issue, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment framed under section 153C was invalid. It agreed that the 'date of search' for the assessee should be considered as 21.10.2021, the date the AO received the seized documents. Consequently, as per section 153C(3), no assessment could be initiated for searches deemed to have occurred on or after 01.04.2021. This jurisdictional ground alone invalidated the assessments. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It held that additions under section 69C require proof of actual expenditure, which was absent, and the brokerage was assumed based on a third-party statement without corroboration or cross-examination. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that in search assessments under section 153A/153C, additions must be based on incriminating material unearthed during the search pertaining to the assessee, citing Supreme Court decisions in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT and other precedents. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that TBOPL was not a registered shareholder of the assessee-company, thus the primary condition for applying Section 2(22)(e) was not met. Citing precedents, it reiterated that deemed dividend provisions apply only when the recipient is a shareholder. As it was a commercial lending, neither Section 2(22)(e) nor Section 201(1) of the Act were attracted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide specific observations on the assessee's application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision on the delay application.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI was correctly confirmed based on High Court and Apex Court judgments. However, the addition for revenue mismatch was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of detailed reconciliation.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic, passed without considering the grounds of appeal or merits, and observed that the assessee was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing, particularly due to the Covid pandemic and short intervals between subsequent notices. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity and decide on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. On the first issue, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment framed under section 153C was invalid. It agreed that the 'date of search' for the assessee should be considered as 21.10.2021, the date the AO received the seized documents. Consequently, as per section 153C(3), no assessment could be initiated for searches deemed to have occurred on or after 01.04.2021. This jurisdictional ground alone invalidated the assessments. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It held that additions under section 69C require proof of actual expenditure, which was absent, and the brokerage was assumed based on a third-party statement without corroboration or cross-examination. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that in search assessments under section 153A/153C, additions must be based on incriminating material unearthed during the search pertaining to the assessee, citing Supreme Court decisions in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT and other precedents. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C can only be invoked if expenditure is actually incurred and its source is unexplained. In this case, the differences were due to timing of accounting, disputed bills, or unilateral entries by creditors, not actual incurred expenditure by the assessee in the relevant year.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's inability to appear before the CIT(A) due to unforeseen circumstances and, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to comply with all notices and provide submissions without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not called for. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the balance sheet, income and expenditure account, and bank statement submitted by the assessee, which showed the cash deposits were related to donations for the trust.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.8,36,550/- made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. The primary basis for the addition was a seized Excel sheet found during the search of the H.N. Safal Group. The Tribunal noted that this Excel sheet was unsigned, undated, and lacked any acknowledgment from the assessee. Crucially, the Revenue had not presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation of cash payment. The assessee had consistently denied making any such cash payment. The Tribunal relied on the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia vs. DCIT, which held that an Excel sheet found from a third party's premises, if unsigned and unsupported by corroborative material, cannot form the basis of an addition in the assessee's hands. The Court had observed that there was no adjudication to establish actual payment by the assessee, and in the absence of supporting material, proceedings under section 153C stood vitiated. The Tribunal also referred to similar views from co-ordinate benches in other cases. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs.8,36,550/-. Regarding the legal grounds concerning the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee on merits by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, and the assessee's AR preferred not to argue these grounds, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating them independently. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation, supported by documentary evidence like pay-in slips with the consultant's PAN, joint account operation, and withdrawal by the consultant, was credible. The addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.
The assessee submitted a letter to the Tribunal expressing its intention to withdraw the appeal. Based on this withdrawal request, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the second assessment order was invalid as the DRP could not issue directions when the assessment proceedings had already attained finality with the passing of the first assessment order and an appeal was pending. Therefore, the second assessment order was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proof by furnishing documentary evidence for the sources of cash deposits, including the sale of jewellery with disclosed capital gains and details of gift donors. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to controvert this evidence, and thus, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the 344-day delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to consider all documents, including the dissolution deed and audited accounts of the proprietary concern, and to address both the legal issue of assessment on a dissolved firm and the factual issue of bank deposit reconciliation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's failure to appear was due to unforeseen circumstances and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the sanction obtained for initiating reassessment proceedings was from an incompetent authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year. This rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals without delving into the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the sanction obtained for initiating reassessment proceedings was from an incompetent authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year. This rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals without delving into the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry and verification of expenditure. The assessee's grounds regarding jurisdictional defects and exemption claims were rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's findings regarding the claim of deduction under Section 32AC and the non-examination of government grants by the AO. However, the PCIT's findings on the transactions with M/s. Ravi Trading Co. were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay of 816 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also found no merit in the grounds raised on merits, noting that the difference in agricultural income was rightly treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal, while not condoning the delay before the CIT(A), noted from evidence that the assessee actually incurred a loss of Rs. 2,55,447/- from same-day share transactions, contradicting the AO's finding of bogus LTCG. Observing the AO's cryptic order and lack of cogent reasons for the addition, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for re-examination, directing the assessee to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and comply with the AO's directions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary inquiries and additions based on the Tax Audit Report. The doctrine of merger was rejected, and the PCIT's direction for verification was upheld.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities but dismissed the appeal without merit examination. Considering the assessee's arguments regarding an opening cash balance and non-confrontation of the Verification Unit report, and with no objection from the Sr. DR, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to provide evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the agreement for the property was fixed in 2013 and part payment was made by account payee cheques through a bank account, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act were not attracted. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The tribunal held that while the cancellation of the deal might have been an afterthought to avoid tax liability, the fact remains that the deal was cancelled and any amount received by cheque was refunded. The PCIT could not rebut the cancellation of the deed. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that no unaccounted income could be taxed at this stage, the AO's view was plausible, and the assessment order was not erroneous. The PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was deemed unsustainable and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, which introduced an explanation for retrospective applicability, could not be applied to the assessment years under consideration as it took effect from April 1, 2022. The Tribunal also relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision that Section 14A has no application if no exempt income is claimed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the addition of Rs. 1.50 crores under Section 68, concluding that the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted the lender's cessation of business activities, lack of IT returns, and that a director of 'Jain Farms Private Limited' was also a partner in the assessee firm, suggesting the company was used to route the assessee's unaccounted income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documents to substantiate the transaction's legitimacy. The burden of proof was on the Assessing Officer, who failed to provide concrete evidence that the transaction was bogus. The loan amounts were duly repaid with interest after TDS.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, taking into account submissions and explanations from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,82,35,966/- on a protective basis as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The corresponding substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Bhadiadra, and this amount was purportedly to be remitted to Shri Bhadiadra, thus not belonging to the assessee, as per the CIT(A)'s findings. The AO had rejected the assessee's explanation. However, this amount was already part of the total deposits in Kotak Mahindra Bank which had been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2021-22, amounting to Rs. 111,73,83,638/-. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that adding this amount again in the hands of Aadhar Foundation, without prejudice to the addition made in the hands of Shri Saumil Bhadiadra, constituted double taxation of the same receipt. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.