ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was challenged on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo assessment, providing one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid was an actual and ascertained liability under the mercantile system of accounting, thus allowable. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance was not warranted, especially in light of previous decisions and the fact that no new investments were made in the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that the AO had sufficient reasons to re-open the assessment and that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations for the cash deposits. The re-opening was based on credible information and due application of mind, not mere suspicion. Furthermore, the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to comply with notices were noted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on the remaining amount of Rs. 18,07,500/-, treating it as unexplained money. However, the addition of Rs. 10 lakh was sent for further verification. The Tribunal also upheld the penalty order for non-compliance with notices.

The Tribunal held that Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exempts interest payments made by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, regardless of amendments. It also held that interest paid to the government-run Jagan Nath Temple is exempt from TDS as per Notification SO 3489.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the department's appeals, upholding the deletion of additions related to undisclosed sales, unexplained money/expenditure, and allowing the deduction under Section 80IA, finding no incriminating material linking the seized documents to the assessee for most additions. The assessee's cross-objections were largely allowed on legal grounds. However, one specific issue regarding depreciation for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 was remanded back to the AO for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing the assessee to consider the cost of acquisition basis FMV as on 01.04.2001 was in consonance with the provisions of Section 55(1)(b). Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind and were based on borrowed information, not on tangible material. The reasons for reopening were found to be general descriptions without establishing a clear link between the information received and the belief of escaped income. Consequently, the reassessment notice and proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It was held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had passed speaking orders considering all the evidence and submissions. The assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate claims for gifts, salary, cash deposits, and property sale. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation for the source of deposits, which were duly recorded in its books of accounts and corroborated by supporting documents. The Tribunal noted that the AO invoked Section 68 based on the assessee's alleged violation of RBI guidelines, which was not a sufficient ground for treating the deposits as unexplained income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the gifts as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The credits in the bank account were therefore considered unexplained income earned from undisclosed sources and were added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction. The AO had conducted due inquiry and applied his mind, accepting the assessee's claim based on judicial precedents. The Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal, noting that the assessee did not avail opportunities to represent their case before the CIT(A), decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh denovo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the gifts and the financial capacity of the donors. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gift transactions, as well as the source of unexplained deposits. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, considering the settlement of the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It was clarified that the appeal could be revived under certain conditions.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed speaking orders after considering all relevant documents and submissions, adhering to principles of natural justice. Since the assessee failed to pursue the appeal despite 50 opportunities and was deemed absconding, the Tribunal sustained the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on all issues.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals, noting that they became infructuous due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals, as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, rendering the appeals infructuous. It was clarified that appeals could be revived under Section 254(2) if the scheme benefits were not fully availed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gifts received, and therefore, the amounts deposited in the bank account were to be considered as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. However, the assessee was given liberty to revive the appeal if they failed to avail the scheme benefits due to technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the gifts received. The onus was on the assessee to prove the source of the credits, which was not discharged. Therefore, the gifts were considered as the assessee's own income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as proper notices were not served to the assessee or their counsel. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the dispute settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal could be revived under Section 254(2) if technicalities prevented availing the Scheme's full benefit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the alleged gifts. The deposits were treated as undisclosed income and added to the assessee's total income, upholding the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal considered the Assessee's request for withdrawal and granted permission. The appeals were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the dispute settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. It also clarified that the appeal could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the assessee fails to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed speaking orders considering all facts and submissions. Despite numerous opportunities, the assessee failed to comply or provide plausible explanations.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear despite multiple opportunities and that their representatives had withdrawn their power of attorney. The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed speaking orders considering all aspects, and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the multiple PAN numbers issued to the assessee and the initiation of proceedings under a non-operational PAN. Finding it just and fair to re-examine the entire issue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute the applicability of Section 271AAB. Despite numerous opportunities, the assessee failed to comply or present any rebuttal. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be a speaking order on merit, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with its findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits with supporting documentation, including sales invoices and VAT returns, and the books of account were not rejected. The AO's addition was based on assumptions and presumptions, not concrete evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No.09/2024. The appeal was dismissed, but with a clarification that the dismissal was not on merits.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income had a direct nexus with the business income of the assessee and was earned from unaccounted sales. Therefore, it should be treated as business income. The CIT(A) was justified in granting the benefit of telescoping and deleting the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the protective addition of Rs. 2 crore could not be sustained as the substantive addition for the same amount had already been confirmed in the hands of M/s ARK Imports Pvt. Ltd., and taxing it again would amount to double taxation.