Loading ITAT cases…
212 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to rectify the defects regarding the payment of tribunal fees even after reminders. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the deposits were duly supported by corresponding withdrawals from the same bank accounts and the explanation provided by the assessee was satisfactory. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid advance and self-assessment tax. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside with a direction to the JAO to rework the interest calculations under sections 234B and 234C after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete details to the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and verification of MAT credit treatment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given multiple opportunities but failed to provide substantiating evidence. However, considering the assessee's prayer for a fresh opportunity and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that expenses such as stamp duty, registration charges, legal charges, and land tax are integral parts of the property's purchase price and must be considered for calculating income chargeable under Section 56(2)(x). Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering these expenses and providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee remained non-compliant and did not furnish requisite details. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to furnish all necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine and was part of a systematic financial maneuver to legitimize illicit money and evade taxes. Following a coordinate bench decision, the grounds raised by the assessee were found to be devoid of merit.
The Tribunal upheld the deemed rental income addition of Rs. 2,82,090/-, finding the market-based estimation valid as per Section 23(4). However, it remanded the housing loan interest disallowance back to the AO, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide supporting documents for verification under Section 24(b).
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the RTGS transfers. If at least 90% of receipts are found to be transferred, the additions shall not be warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for expenditure on maintenance of the property could not be totally ruled out, considering the property was rented to a Government Department and similar treatment was given to co-owners. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the source of the loan was genuinely established and well-documented through the AO's own inquiries into the lender's finances, including land acquisition compensation and cash withdrawals. Therefore, the addition of INR 10,00,000 to the assessee's income was unwarranted, and no addition was called for.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on tangible material and the AO's action was reasonable given the information available. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the ex parte assessment to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance and ex-parte orders from the lower authorities. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) was not applicable as the loans were used for capital expenditure, not revenue purposes. It also found that the expenses were incurred through banking channels and that audit fees were genuinely provided for. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO, directing him to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and to adjudicate the issue afresh. The Tribunal considered that the assessee had a valid reason for not participating earlier due to being a US citizen and NRI, and needing to procure documents from India.
The Tribunal found that, in light of CBDT Circular No.20/2016 which extended the electronic filing of appeals till 15.06.2016, the assessee's e-appeal filed on 04.06.2016 was within the due date. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on their merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with previous opportunities but allowed the appeal in the interest of justice, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the explanation and evidence produced by the assessee, including details of investments and loans. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not entertain additional documents filed under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given several opportunities to present its case but failed to submit the required details. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the loan transaction with DPCL, which was received and repaid through banking channels with interest and TDS. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the additions unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not examined the issue in the correct perspective. The assessee requested an opportunity to furnish all necessary details. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explainable through earlier withdrawals and accumulated savings disclosed in previous years. The AO had not disputed the withdrawals or shown alternate use of the cash, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's efforts to let out the five flats, despite not materializing due to the pandemic and subsequent sale, were sufficient to claim nil deemed rent. For the office premises, it was held not to be used for business or profession, but the assessee was allowed to treat it as self-occupied property.
The Tribunal noted that the cheque payments were not in dispute. Regarding the Rs. 3,38,000/- cash payment, considering its diminutive nature and the specific circumstances presented, the Tribunal ruled that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified and should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking proper analysis of the assessee's submissions and evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not conducted a detailed examination and thus violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not furnish the precise date of purchase of the shares. The assessee's portfolio consisted of shares in established companies, making the sudden acquisition of 31,000 shares of an obscure company like Safal Herbs Ltd., with no known financial credibility or commercial substance, defy logic and normal human conduct. The assessee did not justify the rationale for such an investment or explain the choice to deal exclusively in a company with no business history. The shares were held for a relatively short period, and the assessee could not demonstrate long-term investor status. This conduct, cumulatively viewed, supported the conclusion that the transactions were prearranged to generate exempt income as LTCG. The Tribunal relied on the ratio in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Swati Bajaj (Calcutta) and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Usha Devi Modi (Calcutta), which held that in cases of unreasonable share price rise in penny stocks over a short period, the assessee must establish genuineness, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the AO is justified in invoking Section 68 (or Section 69A in this case). The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP in Suman Poddar v. Income-tax Officer, affirming that findings based on appreciation of evidence and human probabilities in such cases are pure findings of fact. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's order treating the gains as unexplained income and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on an uncorroborated third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination is unsustainable. The denial of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the interest of justice, it granted one more opportunity for the assessee to substantiate the source of funds, remitting the matter for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that an addition solely based on an uncorroborated third-party statement, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, is unsustainable in law. The lack of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person are void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Notices issued to a deceased person are unenforceable and void in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 771 days in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bona fide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 118-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reason of the accountant's demise. It found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex parte without proper opportunity of hearing due to the unforeseen circumstances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and the addition made by the AO on account of long-term capital gains was unsustainable as the AO failed to refer the matter to the DVO. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and the addition made by the AO on account of long-term capital gains was unsustainable as the AO failed to refer the matter to the DVO. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the difference arose due to statutory compliance under VAT law regarding the reversal of input tax credit on returned goods, not due to inflation of purchases. The Assessing Officer did not provide evidence of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted an abnormal increase in cash in hand and questioned the veracity of the claimed cash sales and deposits during demonetisation. It found that the details of cash sales and cash in hand required proper verification, which had not been adequately conducted by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon them under Section 68 of the Act. The purchase and sale of shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. exhibited characteristics of a pre-meditated and artificially structured accommodation entry. The pattern of trading, abnormal price rise without financial backing, and involvement of known operators like Shri Ashish Panalal Shah demonstrated that the transactions were fictitious and designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-free LTCG. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents including Suman Poddar v. ITO, CIT v. Durga Prasad More, Sumati Dayal v. CIT, and Calcutta High Court decisions in similar penny stock cases, which mandate the assessee to prove the genuineness of steep share price rises. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee relied on a previous ITAT decision regarding the same scrip, judicial precedents must be applied in the context of their specific facts. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition unsustainable, as it was based on documentary evidence without appreciating the abnormality and implausibility of the transactions. The AO was justified in treating the alleged LTCG as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and denying exemption under Section 10(38). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO's order was restored.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had ignored crucial documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds, including gratuity, leave encashment, milk sales, and loan repayment. It held that the additions related to these explained amounts, including Rs. 21,90,289/- and a loan repayment of Rs. 4,95,000/-, do not sustain as the sources were established.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to furnish evidence for the additions made, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- cost. The CIT(A) is directed to allow a hearing and consider additional evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and comply with notices without unnecessary adjournments. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored.
The Tribunal noted that the firm's account was utilized by the partner who continued business of a similar nature. However, the partner failed to establish the source of deposits with sufficient evidence. The Tribunal directed the partner to produce detailed records of business conduct, failing which they would be subject to the Act's provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The conduct of the assessee and artificially inflated share prices indicated a premeditated arrangement for tax exemption.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay before the CIT(A) and the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice and based on the counsel's prayer for an opportunity to furnish details, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to comply with all future notices and submit required documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) violated principles of natural justice by granting insufficient time for the assessee to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not clearly mentioned whether proper notice was served. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication after verifying the details submitted by the assessee, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO lacked independent verification and corroborative evidence. The tribunal noted that the assessee discharged the onus under Section 68 with documentary evidence and that the AO's action was based on presumptions, not specific proof of the assessee's involvement in manipulation.