ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already approached the authorities to settle the issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form 2 had been issued. Given this, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity by the AO to present documents and explanations, and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case and documents.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, noting that the matter was decided ex-parte and the merits were not considered. The case was remitted to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the documents and hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed expenditure without supporting evidence and failed to produce evidence before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A) with supporting documents. The Tribunal warned that no further leniency would be provided if the requirement is not met.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not appearing before the AO and CIT(A) due to severe medical conditions and issues with her consultant not relaying notices. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without issuing a show-cause notice or specifying the mismatched activities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, including relief to the poor, education, medical relief, and public utility, were in accordance with its objects.

The Tribunal found that charging fees for imparting education in an art form does not necessarily make the activity commercial. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was registered under Section 12AB and was involved in charitable activities. A discrepancy in the financial statement was observed, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one final opportunity to present all supporting evidence before the CIT(A). It clarified that no further chances would be provided if the assessee failed to comply with this requirement.

The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, the assessee could not submit the required documents. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that as per Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, an appeal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of Form 2. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to reinstate it if the DTVSV application is not accepted for any reason.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s rejection of the delay condonation application was incorrect, considering the minimal delay and the explanation provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case with necessary documents, considering the reasons for non-appearance due to the wife's illness.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay, as hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email ID despite a different one being provided. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's genuine financial difficulties and administrative challenges that led to non-prosecution, decided to grant one more opportunity. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that rejection based on mere technicalities, especially when there's no dispute about the charitable activities, is not justified and can severely affect the assessee. They relied on precedents from the Orissa High Court and ITAT Hyderabad.

The Tribunal held that rejection of the application on mere technicalities, without considering the charitable nature of the activities or affording an opportunity of being heard, is not justified. The Tribunal condoned the technical mistake and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed without sufficient opportunity to the assessee and on surmises. The CIT(A) also failed to provide an opportunity to file additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the loan for charitable purposes is an application of income, especially since the loan was shown as income in the year of borrowing and the amendment disallowing such claims is prospective. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable because the receipt was from debtors and not in the nature of unexplained money, bullion, or jewelry. The Tribunal further held that the unaccounted receipt should be added as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO and that the documents/records considered by the CIT(A) were not additional evidence as they were produced before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal partly.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of the Section 68 addition back to the AO for further verification, stipulating that no addition should be made if the assessee provides details proving the deposits were from members. Regarding the Section 80P deduction, the Tribunal reversed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the revenue's ground and restoring the AO's order of disallowance, citing the amended Section 80AC(ii) and the assessee's delayed return filing.

The Tribunal held that the cash receipts represented sales which the assessee had rightly offered for taxation. The assessee had sufficient stock, and the books of accounts were not disputed. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to consider the extraordinary event of demonetization and treated high sales as bogus without sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below had not considered the records/evidences in detail and therefore, the entire issue in dispute is remitted to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that since the dispute was being resolved under the VSV Scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee is a senior citizen with health issues who could not actively respond. It also observed a mismatch in the VAT return turnover. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A) meant the case's merits were not decided. Acknowledging the assessee's claim about consultant negligence but also their own lack of follow-up, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the conditions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were met. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, books of accounts are not required, and therefore, additions based on alleged bogus purchases or undisclosed investments without corroborative evidence were not tenable. The Tribunal also noted that fixed deposits were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal noted that ICDS-II clause 22, when read with clauses 4 and 5, implies that opening stock valuation should be inclusive of taxes and duties and applies to all years, not just transitional ones. The AO's interpretation to apply it only to closing stock was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's reasons for the delay were genuine and that the issue of foreign tax credit disallowance needed to be decided on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the VSV Scheme and dismissed the appeal. It was clarified that the appeal could be restored if the settlement was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons genuine and acknowledging their vigilance in pursuing the issue. The case was remitted to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the issue of disallowance under Section 14A, stating no exempt income was earned. The disallowance on account of fire loss was allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1). The issue regarding disallowance of Rs.17,06,204 was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds (delay) without adjudicating on merits. Considering the assessee's condition, the Tribunal granted another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of ₹1,57,00,000/- in Andhra Bank was explained as it was utilized for acquiring a property for Mr. Chandra Kaladhara Reddy, and the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. The deposits in Chartered Sahakari Co-operative Bank and Karnataka Apex Co-operative Bank were also found to be supported by cash withdrawals. However, Rs. 10 lakh credited from M/s KR Shelter was not sufficiently accounted for.

The tribunal held that the assessee's e-filed return was valid due to the condonation of delay by the CPC and acknowledged technical glitches. Therefore, the failure of the AO to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act rendered the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 invalid and liable to be quashed. Furthermore, the tribunal found the AO's recourse to best judgment assessment under Section 144 unjustified, as the preconditions for such an assessment were not met given a valid return and absence of a show cause notice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a nominal cost of Rs. 500 was imposed due to the unexplained delay of 142 days, allowing the assessee another chance to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the scheme.

The tribunal noted that the assessee is settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and Form-2 has been issued. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The tribunal dismissed the appeal.

For AY 2020-21 (ITA No. 1075/Bang/2024), the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of donations to the unregistered trust but allowed the various other expenses, finding them incidental to the trust's charitable objectives. For AY 2021-22 (ITA No. 1076/Bang/2024), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for accumulated income, holding that earmarking existing fixed deposits and considering current bank balances as investments satisfied the conditions of Section 11(2) read with Section 11(5), based on judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that expenses incidental to charitable activities, including interest on TDS, penalties for statutory obligations, gifts for welfare, statue expenses, and ITC write-off, are allowable as application of income. Regarding accumulation, the Tribunal found that increased bank balances and existing FDRs, free from lien, constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11(5) for claiming deduction under Section 11(2).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee selected a wrong code due to a technical glitch in the application form. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee a chance to correct the error and directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of proper representation and response before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A), with a warning against future non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not properly represented her case before the lower authorities and granted one more opportunity. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that an assessment order framed against a non-existent entity, whose amalgamation was known and acknowledged by the tax authorities, is void ab initio. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Mahagun Realtors, where the department was unaware of the amalgamation.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and the quantification of tax payment under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.