ITAT Allahabad Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal noted that the appeals became infructuous due to the assessee's decision to opt for the VSVS. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as having been withdrawn. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to approach the ITAT for restoration of appeals if any issues are not settled under the VSVS.

The Tribunal found the appeals to be infructuous as the assessee had opted for VSVS and completed the tax payment. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the issues are not settled under VSVS.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the VSVS and completed the necessary formalities, the appeals became infructuous and were dismissed. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could seek restoration of appeals if the issues were found not settled under VSVS.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) due to discrepancies. It remanded the issue of alleged suppression of receipts (Rs.56,69,837/-) back to the AO for re-examination, emphasizing verification from government departments and the principle of accrual post-measurement. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by fixing the net profit rate on contractual receipts at 3.5% (up from the declared 2.87% but lower than AO's 7% and CIT(A)'s 5%), while accepting declared profits for sales.

The tribunal upheld the additions under section 69A for unsecured loans from Shri Umang Grover and Shri Piyush Verma, as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. However, the tribunal allowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 5,29,827/-, finding that the assets were purchased for the assessee's business and payments were made from her accounts, despite invoices being in her husband's name.

The ITAT deleted the addition of Rs.55,51,043/- for opening capital, finding sufficient third-party evidence that the poultry farm infrastructure existed prior to the assessment year and that non-reflection in previous 'no account' returns was not a ground for dispute. The tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs.5.25 lakhs for gifts, ruling that the creditworthiness of donors was established by property sales and agricultural landholdings. However, the ITAT rejected the assessee's contention regarding the invalidity of assessment due to alleged non-service of notice under section 143(2), as no evidence was provided to demonstrate the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The tribunal held that the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation due to COVID-19 applied only to filing litigation and did not extend statutory payment due dates for PF/ESI. It further ruled that there was no merger between the 143(1) intimation and the subsequent 143(3) scrutiny assessment, as the latter was for different reasons and did not examine the PF/ESI issue. Upholding the ratio of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, the tribunal concluded that delayed deposits of employees' contributions are not allowable.