Loading ITAT cases…
38 tribunal orders from the Allahabad bench in 2022.
Showing 38 of 38 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the purchase of the Godown and its source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was not based on proper investigation and was prejudicial to the revenue. It noted that the AO did not interrogate the individuals behind the companies involved in the share transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without giving the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence produced by the assessee for the first time during appellate proceedings. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271D, agreeing with the lower authorities that accepting cash loans in contravention of Section 269SS is not excused by the fact that the director deposited the cash or that the funds were used for company purposes. Ignorance of the law was also not accepted as a valid defense.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if paid belatedly as per the respective Acts, even if before the due date of filing the return, is not deductible. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The Assessing Officer also accepted that the circular was applicable and the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct adequate inquiries and verifications before passing the assessment order. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was a non-speaking order, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it did not discuss the issues involved. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 to explain the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the fresh deposits. Consequently, the addition made by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that setting up a new claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for the first time through a rectification application under Section 154 is not permissible. The Tribunal also referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that a revised return cannot be used to introduce an entirely new claim.
The Tribunal held that setting up a new claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for the first time through a rectification application under Section 154 is not permissible. The Tribunal also referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that a revised return cannot be used to introduce an entirely new claim.
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not fully justified as some issues were based on assumptions or were not properly substantiated. However, certain aspects of the Pr. CIT's concerns warranted further examination.
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not fully justified as some issues were based on assumptions or were not properly substantiated. However, certain aspects of the Pr. CIT's concerns warranted further examination.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 17.10.2018, allowing 30 days for filing the return. However, before the expiry of this period, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) on 30.10.2018. The assessee had requested copies of impounded documents on 29.10.2018. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored these requests and issued the section 142(1) notice prematurely. The non-supply of impounded material, including audited statements of accounts, made the assessee handicapped in complying with the notices. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, falling under section 273B, and thus deleted the penalty. For assessment year 2017-18, the facts were identical regarding the non-supply of impounded material. The Tribunal noted that copies of seized documents were supplied only on 28.01.2019, just before the penalty order was passed on 30.01.2019, indicating the assessee was deprived of necessary records. Therefore, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance and deleted the penalty for this year as well. The ratio decidendi is that non-supply of crucial documents by the Revenue, requested by the assessee for compliance, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices, warranting deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 17.10.2018, allowing 30 days for filing the return. However, before the expiry of this period, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) on 30.10.2018. The assessee had requested copies of impounded documents on 29.10.2018. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored these requests and issued the section 142(1) notice prematurely. The non-supply of impounded material, including audited statements of accounts, made the assessee handicapped in complying with the notices. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, falling under section 273B, and thus deleted the penalty. For assessment year 2017-18, the facts were identical regarding the non-supply of impounded material. The Tribunal noted that copies of seized documents were supplied only on 28.01.2019, just before the penalty order was passed on 30.01.2019, indicating the assessee was deprived of necessary records. Therefore, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance and deleted the penalty for this year as well. The ratio decidendi is that non-supply of crucial documents by the Revenue, requested by the assessee for compliance, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices, warranting deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 17.10.2018, allowing 30 days for filing the return. However, before the expiry of this period, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) on 30.10.2018. The assessee had requested copies of impounded documents on 29.10.2018. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored these requests and issued the section 142(1) notice prematurely. The non-supply of impounded material, including audited statements of accounts, made the assessee handicapped in complying with the notices. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, falling under section 273B, and thus deleted the penalty. For assessment year 2017-18, the facts were identical regarding the non-supply of impounded material. The Tribunal noted that copies of seized documents were supplied only on 28.01.2019, just before the penalty order was passed on 30.01.2019, indicating the assessee was deprived of necessary records. Therefore, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance and deleted the penalty for this year as well. The ratio decidendi is that non-supply of crucial documents by the Revenue, requested by the assessee for compliance, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices, warranting deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 17.10.2018, allowing 30 days for filing the return. However, before the expiry of this period, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) on 30.10.2018. The assessee had requested copies of impounded documents on 29.10.2018. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored these requests and issued the section 142(1) notice prematurely. The non-supply of impounded material, including audited statements of accounts, made the assessee handicapped in complying with the notices. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, falling under section 273B, and thus deleted the penalty. For assessment year 2017-18, the facts were identical regarding the non-supply of impounded material. The Tribunal noted that copies of seized documents were supplied only on 28.01.2019, just before the penalty order was passed on 30.01.2019, indicating the assessee was deprived of necessary records. Therefore, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance and deleted the penalty for this year as well. The ratio decidendi is that non-supply of crucial documents by the Revenue, requested by the assessee for compliance, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices, warranting deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) judiciously exercised its discretion in not condoning the substantial delay as the assessee failed to show sufficient cause. The Tribunal found no merit in interfering with the CIT(A)'s order.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which requires forwarding such evidence to the AO for remand report. The appellate order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte dismissal without a speaking order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that an addition can be made under Section 153A even if it's not based on incriminating material found during the search, especially for years where the assessment was not pending. The Tribunal also found no double addition regarding an amount already accepted in original assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The core issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, representing share capital introduced by two shareholders, Sanjeev Kumar and Vinod Kumar Sharma. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to adequately explain the sources of the cash investments of Rs. 10,00,000/- each by these individuals. The reasoning was that the creditworthiness of these shareholders could not be established, considering the material on record, including the income declared in their respective income tax returns. The Tribunal reiterated the legal fiction created by Section 68, which places the onus on the assessee to satisfy the AO cumulatively regarding the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors, and the genuineness of the transaction. Since the assessee failed to meet this burden, the addition was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and ordered accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer initiated compulsory scrutiny without prior approval and in violation of CBDT instructions. The notice under section 143(2) was issued before the relevant CBDT instructions for the financial year, rendering the compulsory scrutiny invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh determination. The assessee was directed to file a revised tax-audit report, and the AO was to verify it with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(va). The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the creditor's details. However, it provided one more opportunity to the assessee to submit complete evidence before the AO.
The Tribunal found that the computation of gross receipts and the estimation of income required proper verification. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish relevant details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in allowing deduction under Section 80P without adjudicating on crucial issues that go to the root of the matter. Specifically, the CIT(A) failed to determine whether the assessee qualified as a 'co-operative society' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Act, which is a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) also did not address the AO's concerns regarding the failure of the assessee to substantiate its gross receipts and commission income, the rejection of its books of accounts under Section 145(3) for AY 2015-16, and the non-furnishing of a tax audit report despite being covered by Section 44AB. The Tribunal acknowledged that Section 80P provisions are benevolent but emphasized the onus on the assessee to provide necessary facts and the need for fact-finding inquiries by the authorities. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. CIT, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of Section 80P deduction and restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order after making necessary inquiries and verifications, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the issue and kept all contentions open. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in allowing deduction under Section 80P without adjudicating on crucial issues that go to the root of the matter. Specifically, the CIT(A) failed to determine whether the assessee qualified as a 'co-operative society' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Act, which is a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) also did not address the AO's concerns regarding the failure of the assessee to substantiate its gross receipts and commission income, the rejection of its books of accounts under Section 145(3) for AY 2015-16, and the non-furnishing of a tax audit report despite being covered by Section 44AB. The Tribunal acknowledged that Section 80P provisions are benevolent but emphasized the onus on the assessee to provide necessary facts and the need for fact-finding inquiries by the authorities. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. CIT, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of Section 80P deduction and restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order after making necessary inquiries and verifications, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the issue and kept all contentions open. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B are applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards, not for the year under consideration. Therefore, the deduction for employee contributions deposited before the due date of the return of income is allowable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the dispute was not settled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reply was not a withdrawal but a request to defer proceedings. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering it on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It also directed the Revenue to look into the assessee's claim of uncredited prepaid taxes and issue Form No. 5 under VSVS, 2020, if the claim is found meritorious.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision and its own previous order, the Tribunal ruled that if employee PF/ESI contributions are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside.