ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid. It rejected the assessee's contention that the notice was bad in law, stating that the information basis for the AO's action was not disputed and that the assessee had not provided any evidence to suggest the AO lacked independent application of mind. Regarding the addition of Rs. 18,07,500/-, the Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s finding. It rejected the assessee's claims for Rs. 4.5 lakh (agriculture lease income) and Rs. 4 lakh (advance for land sale) due to lack of supporting documents. The explanation for the remaining Rs. 9,57,500/- (Rs. 18,07,500 - Rs. 4.5 lakh - Rs. 4 lakh) as cash re-deposits was also rejected for want of plausible explanation and material evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remit Rs. 10 lakh for further verification. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee deliberately defaulted in complying with statutory notices under Section 142(1) and found no plausible explanation for the non-compliance, thus upholding the penalty.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the interest payment was an ascertained liability and that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also found the AO's basis for allocation of interest to be arbitrary.

The Tribunal has not provided a decision or reasoning in the provided excerpt. The judgment appears to be incomplete, and the Tribunal's findings on the issues raised, the reasoning behind those findings, and the operative directions are not available. No specific relief has been granted or denied, and no issue has been expressly left undecided as the core of the judgment is missing. The excerpt ends abruptly without any substantive ruling.

The ITAT held that the additions made by the AO were not based on incriminating material pertaining to each year, thus applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the department's appeals were dismissed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable. The CIT(A) had correctly decided the appeals on this legal ground. Consequently, the Department's appeals for all assessment years were dismissed on legal grounds, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed on legal grounds. However, regarding the additional ground raised in the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant under section 143(1) without reason, the Tribunal found that this issue was not adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue on merits. The cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were partly allowed, while the cross-objections for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that all additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also relied on this judgment and subsequent pronouncements, including CBDT instructions, directing the AO to examine the possibility of action under Section 147/148, subject to conditions. Consequently, the Department's appeals were dismissed on legal grounds, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed on legal grounds. However, for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant by CPC without reason was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remanded this specific issue to the AO for decision on merits, leading to the cross-objections for these years being partly allowed. The cross-objections for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable. The CIT(A) had correctly decided the appeal on this legal ground. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department for all assessment years were dismissed on legal grounds, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were allowed on legal grounds. Regarding the additional ground raised in the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant by CPC without reasons, the Tribunal found that the depreciation was disallowed under Section 143(1) without assigning any reason. The Tribunal remanded this specific issue to the file of the AO to decide on merits. Thus, the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were partly allowed, while those for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds. The ratio decidendi is that additions made without incriminating material for the respective years are unsustainable, and orders under Section 143(1) merged with regular assessments and can be adjudicated in appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted a plausible valuation report. The PCIT's revisionary action was not sustained as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration, thus making the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. applicable. The CIT(A) had correctly applied this legal principle. Consequently, the Department's appeals for all assessment years were dismissed on legal grounds, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed on legal grounds. However, regarding the additional ground raised in the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant, the Tribunal found that the depreciation was disallowed under section 143(1) without reason. The Tribunal remanded this specific issue to the AO for adjudication on merits. Therefore, the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were partly allowed, while those for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that all additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was clearly applicable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal on this legal ground, and consequently, other grounds of appeal raised by the department were not adjudicated. The appeals filed by the department were dismissed on legal grounds, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were allowed on legal grounds. Regarding the additional ground raised in the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant under section 143(1), the Tribunal found that the CPC had disallowed depreciation without assigning any reason. The Tribunal remanded this specific issue to the file of the AO to decide on merits. Therefore, the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were partly allowed, while the cross-objections for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that all additions were made without the basis of any incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable. The CIT(A)'s finding that no incriminating material was found was upheld. Consequently, the Department's appeals for all assessment years were dismissed on legal grounds, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed on legal grounds. However, regarding the additional ground of appeal concerning the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal found that the CPC had disallowed depreciation under section 143(1) without reason. The Tribunal remanded this specific issue to the AO for decision on merits. Thus, the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were partly allowed, while those for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to other cooperative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, and also on interest paid to the government-run temple under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f).

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank is not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to other cooperative societies by virtue of section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, both pre-amended and post-amended. The Tribunal found the assessee's contention meritorious, noting that the exemption under section 194A(3)(v) clearly covers income credited or paid by a cooperative society to any other cooperative society, and it is not mandatory for the recipient society to be a member of the paying society. The Tribunal relied on ITAT Chandigarh Bench decisions in Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ITO(TDS)-I, Ludhiana vs. The Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., which held that cooperative societies enjoy immunity from TDS deduction under section 194A(3)(v) on payments of interest to other cooperative societies. Consequently, additions made on this count were directed to be deleted. Regarding interest paid to Jagan Nath Temple Nahan, the Tribunal held that since the temple is run by the State Government, the interest payable is not liable to TDS by virtue of notification SO 3489 dt. 22/10/1970 under section 194A(3)(iii)(f). The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's action in not deducting TDS was justifiable. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank is not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to other cooperative societies by virtue of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, irrespective of whether the section was pre-amended or post-amended. The Tribunal found the assessee's contention meritorious, noting that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) clearly covers income credited or paid by a cooperative society to any other cooperative society, and the recipient cooperative society need not be a member of the paying cooperative society. The Tribunal relied on ITAT Chandigarh Bench decisions in Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and The Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Regarding interest paid to Jagan Nath Temple, the Tribunal held that as the temple is run by the State Government, the interest payable is not liable to TDS under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with Notification SO 3489 dated 22/10/1970. Consequently, the assessee's action in not deducting TDS was deemed justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was impermissible as it amounted to a review of the earlier assessment order and a change of opinion without any new material coming to the Assessing Officer's knowledge. The Tribunal noted that the issue of GDR receipts had been examined in detail in earlier assessment years (2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) and all relevant information was on record. The information now being used to expand the scope of inquiry was already available prior to the conclusion of the earlier reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the extension of inquiry beyond the reasons recorded, based on existing information already considered, was contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and reiterated in Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO. Consequently, the addition on account of GDR receipts amounting to Rs. 44,75,88,075/- was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of purchases, as the primary issue of reassessment jurisdiction was decided against the Revenue, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this addition, implicitly setting aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s partial sustenance. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked the legal basis to assume jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 as there was no proper application of mind and no tangible material. The notice under Section 148 was quashed, and consequent reassessment proceedings were set aside.

The Tribunal held that all additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material pertaining to each year under consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable. The CIT(A) had correctly decided the appeals on this legal ground, relying on Abhisar Buildwell and subsequent judgments, as well as CBDT Instruction No. 1 dated August 23, 2023. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed on legal grounds, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were allowed on legal grounds. Regarding the additional ground raised in the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning the disallowance of depreciation on the power plant under section 143(1) without reason, the Tribunal found that the order under section 143(1) merges with the regular assessment and can be argued in appeal. As no incriminating material was found for this disallowance, the matter was remanded to the AO to decide the issue on its merits. Thus, the cross-objections for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were partly allowed, while those for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 were allowed on legal grounds.

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

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 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 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 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 noted that the foundational ground for imposing the penalty was the "Quantum Assessment Order" which included additions. The CIT(A) had sustained the penalty by dismissing the assessee's appeal against the quantum additions. However, the Tribunal observed that this Tribunal, in its order dated 30/09/2024 in ITA No. 573/Chd/2023, had set aside the quantum assessment order and remanded it back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found no logical reason to sustain the impugned penalty order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO to decide the penalty issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal expressed a desire for a meritorious disposal of the penalty issue and hoped that the material ingredients of Section 271(1)(c) would be explained to the assessee before imposing any penalty.

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 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 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 held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry and considered relevant case law, including a Supreme Court decision on substantial expansion, before allowing the 100% deduction. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

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.

The Tribunal held that the amount in the escrow account was contingent and not accrued to the assessee in the assessment year in question. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable, and the reopening of the assessment was also bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits from sales was genuine and supported by documentation. The Tribunal found no defects in the assessee's submitted documentation or stock availability, and therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income has a direct nexus with the business operations and was rightly offered as business income. The CIT(A) correctly granted the telescoping benefit and deleted the separate additions made by the AO. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition for unexplained investment in the factory building, finding sufficient funds available with the assessee.

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 noted that the assessee did not appear for 50 opportunities, and all their counsels had withdrawn their powers of attorney. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had passed detailed and speaking orders, considering all necessary documents, statements, and submissions. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty under Section 271AAB at 30% on the undisclosed income of Rs. 517,24,47,762/-, finding it sustainable. The CIT(A) also noted that any variation in the addition due to appeals would be given effect to by the AO under Section 275(1A). The Tribunal found no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) as the order was passed on merits and in keeping with the principles of natural justice, despite the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that both appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned orders passed under Section 263 of the Act are quashed. The Tribunal found no dispute that the issues raised by the PCIT in the Section 263 proceedings did not arise from the re-assessment orders. The assessments were reopened for entirely different reasons, and no additions were made based on those reasons. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was based on the belief that the assessee, being in the business of letting out properties, was not entitled to standard deduction under Section 24(a) on rental income, which was an issue pertaining to the original assessment orders. The Tribunal noted that Section 263(2) stipulates that no order can be made after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. For AY 2013-14, the original assessment order was passed on 03.03.2016, meaning the Section 263 action should have been completed before 31.03.2018. For AY 2015-16, the original assessment order was passed on 10.08.2017, meaning the Section 263 action should have been completed before 31.03.2019. The PCIT initiated action on 14.12.2023 and passed orders on 07.03.2024, which are clearly beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd., which held that when the subject matter of re-assessment is distinct and different from the issues raised under Section 263, the limitation period for exercising powers under Section 263 would be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2 crore made by the Assessing Officer was a protective assessment. It noted that a substantive addition for the same amount had already been made in the case of M/s ARK Imports Private Limited for AY 2013-14, and this substantive addition had been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the same income cannot be subjected to taxation again in the hands of the appellant, as it would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal observed that M/s ARK Imports Ltd. was the main concern responsible for bogus transactions, and M/s Karan Sales Corporation was merely an entity used to channelize money. Therefore, the protective addition of Rs. 2 crore in the hands of M/s Karan Sales Corporation could not be sustained. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had passed a speaking order based on incriminating documents found during search operations. The CIT(A) had also passed a speaking order on merits, addressing each ground raised by the assessee. Despite numerous opportunities (fifty occasions) being granted for hearing, the assessee failed to appear, and all their counsels and CAs had withdrawn their powers of attorney due to lack of instructions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's premises were found locked, and the AO reported that the assessee is absconding. Considering these circumstances, and that both the AO and CIT(A) had considered all necessary documents, statements, and submissions while adhering to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The findings of the CIT(A) on different issues were sustained, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's prayer for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.