ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts and it was a mere change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also relied on High Court decisions that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The tribunal condoned the 22-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's explanation for missing the notices and in the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order passed by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant had not paid the tax due on the returned income, which is mandatory as per Section 249(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with AO's notices but not CIT(Appeals) notices. Considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as it was initiated beyond the period of 4 years without alleging any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions, including the Karnataka High Court, which held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as it was done beyond the four-year period without alleging any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also considered various High Court decisions, including the Karnataka High Court, which held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed on 21/12/2022 and the assessee failed to file the appeal before the CIT(A) within the due date, with the reason for delay being health issues supported by an affidavit. The CIT(A) had not condoned the delay. The assessee's AR submitted that notices were not served. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices but the assessee did not respond. However, considering the assessee's request for time to produce documents, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that notices were not properly served and the AR's undertaking to comply with notices and submit documents. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the FAA for fresh consideration.

The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the AO's order and dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, considering the assessee is a vegetable vendor and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT noted that the issue of limited scrutiny was raised for the first time before them. Considering the facts and interests of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue based on law after the assessee produces necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that there was a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. Regarding the issues raised by the Pr.CIT, the Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately examined them. Specifically, the club expenditure of Rs. 8,27,747 was disallowed by the AO as personal, and another club expenditure of Rs. 1,25,134 was not enquired into. For prior period expenses of Rs. 10,03,716, the assessee's AR accepted it as disallowed.

The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments without furnishing necessary documents. The Tribunal, considering the submissions, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case and remitted the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue pertains to the demonetization period and should be examined in light of CBDT instructions. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision and decided to remit the issue back to the AO.

The CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal for not providing satisfactory evidence. However, the Tribunal observed that due to the lack of Assessee's submissions, the issue was not decided in its right perspective and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was ex-parte and the documents provided by the assessee were not properly considered due to procedural issues (like not filing under Rule 46A), the issue needs to be re-examined. The Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee made efforts to submit documents and evidence via email due to website issues, but the AO passed the assessment order without waiting for the reply. The Commissioner also did not entertain the additional evidence. The Tribunal found the authorities' findings lacking in reasonability and decided to remand the case.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to provide necessary submissions and documents despite opportunities. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claimed the deposits were made between 08.11.2016 and 14.11.2016, similar to a previous case where relief was granted. However, the Assessee failed to provide detailed working or evidence to substantiate this claim.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the NFAC order were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-cooperation. Consequently, the entire issue in dispute was remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to provide necessary details to support the investment claims.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds under section 249(4) as the assessee's total income was Rs. 13,296/-, and thus, there was no admitted tax payable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment proceedings were ex-parte and the notices were not served as prescribed, and considering the assessee's age and health, the ex-parte order was condoned. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte. Considering the possibility of notices being missed, and in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before NFAC was not substantiated with documentary evidence, leading to its dismissal. However, considering the assessee's plea for another opportunity and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue to NFAC.

The CIT(A) held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the addition in assessment proceedings was on an estimation basis, as concealment of income or inaccurate particulars were not established. The Tribunal, while noting that the quantum assessment was sustained, found that the assessee claimed no tax liability due to Section 10AA benefits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative attitude but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide another opportunity. The issue was remitted to the NFAC for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reason for the belated filing due to a fraud committed by earlier employees and subsequent scattering of records. The issue regarding the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was remitted back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause (medical condition). It was noted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex-parte, and while deprecating the assessee's non-cooperation, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide another opportunity.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd., held that the Appellate Authority has the power to consider a fresh claim even if it was not made in the original or revised return. The High Court had distinguished the Goetze case, affirming that appellate authorities can entertain such claims.