ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal found that the assessee was a trader who decided to stop its business and sold its opening stock at discounted rates, leading to higher sales. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in treating deposits from the sale of opening stock as income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) for the entire amount received as voluntary retirement compensation. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of advance tax without considering the assessee's claim of income below the taxable limit. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 10% of the cost of improvement was ad-hoc and not based on any plausible reason. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's illiteracy and agriculturist status. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that since the Section 12A registration matter was pending, the Section 80G rejection should also be remanded to the CIT(E). Both issues are to be decided together after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the ownership of the land by the mother is not a ground to reject the Section 54F claim, as the house was constructed and resided in by the assessee. The Tribunal also accepted the valuer's report for the cost of construction over the AO's estimation.

The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the issuance of Form No. 2. The revenue was unable to controvert the facts presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable on the two additions. The first addition was due to a difference in opinion on capitalizing interest, and the second was an estimated addition for scrap value, which was not a basis for penalty.