ITAT Amritsar Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the donor were not established, and the source of funds for the investment remained unexplained. The explanation of the gift was found to be untenable and preposterous.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was for an asset found outside the books of account and thus assessable under Section 69A, not as business income. The assessee's plea regarding rejection of accounts was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free capital to cover non-business assets, including personal investments and cash. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted.

The Tribunal agreed that the undisclosed receipts should be considered as business receipts of the assessee's transport business. However, it found no basis for the 8% estimation of income and restored the matter to the AO for proper quantification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove his claim regarding the dilapidated condition of the Mumbai property. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee an opportunity to present his case and to confront the Revenue's evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the purchase entry was a mistake, the assessee's claim that it did not reduce profit was validated by stock records. The disallowance was directed to be deleted subject to verification of subsequent stock records by the AO.

The tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of rejection was set aside.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-appearance to be genuine and noted that the CIT(A) orders were not passed on merits. To ensure substantial justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-appearance to be genuine and noted that the CIT(A) orders were not passed on merits. To ensure substantial justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting claims regarding the production of evidence before the CIT(A). Considering the possibility of prejudice to the assessee and the lack of prejudice to the Revenue, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment proceedings for the same addition had been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were abated and the penalty order was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for the penalty levy (the addition of Rs. 22,00,000/-) was deleted, the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessment is to be made de novo, considering the registration granted under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant before rejecting the application, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemptions) is set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It was held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the application, which violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be dismissed as there was no tax sought to be evaded, given the allowance of WDV for the entire block of assets. The appeals concerning the rectification application under Section 154 were dismissed on various grounds, including being time-barred or raising debatable issues.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be dismissed as there was no tax sought to be evaded, given the allowance of WDV for the entire block of assets. The appeals concerning the rectification application under Section 154 were dismissed on various grounds, including being time-barred or raising debatable issues.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite the delay, considering the assessee's explanation as bona fide and the legal advice received. On merits, the Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148(1) was not properly served, and therefore, set aside the assessment.