ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission and acceded to the request for another opportunity of hearing. The appeals were remitted to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided cash book details and confirmations from depositors. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify these details and consider the claim accordingly. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for proper opportunity of hearing and physical hearing for the assessee.

The ITAT acknowledged that the assessee was not well-versed with the Income Tax Portal and missed digital notices. The tribunal granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the scope of Section 143(1) is limited to prima facie mistakes and omissions apparent from the record. Disallowing a deduction for non-filing of Form 10B electronically at the intimation stage is not permissible if the form was filed subsequently. The Tribunal referred to various judicial pronouncements supporting the view that belatedly filed Form 10B should be accepted.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning disallowance under Section 14A for securities held as stock-in-trade was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investments vs. CIT. Following this precedent, the Tribunal observed that for banks holding shares as stock-in-trade, any dividend earned is incidental to the business activity.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's request for adjournment. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case before the AO.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was a mistaken fact as the scheme was not applied to the issues concerning TDS non-deduction, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the crucial national duties undertaken by the appellant's office bearers. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the NFAC did not consider relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding Section 80P(2)(d) deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided by the appellant, particularly their involvement in national development projects. The appeals were then remanded to the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to consider relevant Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that they were not digitally savvy and failed to notice digitally issued notices. The Tribunal granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish details of depositors and evidence to substantiate the claim of past savings and drawings. The AO was instructed to verify these details and consider the claim accordingly. The assessee is to be given an opportunity for a physical hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and found sufficient cause. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, directing the assessee to provide supporting evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the fact that the office bearers were engaged in national development work. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had not considered relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding Section 80P(2)(d) deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the payment for interior decoration was made by the assessee to her husband, who then incurred the expenditure. The Tribunal found that this expenditure was substantiated by bank statements and the agreement, and the assesse's husband was convinced about the interior decoration. Therefore, the expenditure was eligible for deduction under section 54.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in the name of a deceased person, supported by a death certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass a fresh order in the name of the legal heir after due notice.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed business exigency for accepting cash loans from Directors, no material was furnished to prove this reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of whether there was a reasonable cause under Section 273B for the cash loans.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and NFAC, and did not respond to notices. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO for a fair opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee, residing in a remote area and unaware of proceedings, failed to respond to notices. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's undertaking to comply, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.