ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2025

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 held that since a substantive addition for the same income had already been confirmed in the hands of the main group concern (M/s ARK Imports Pvt. Ltd.), making a protective addition in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation.

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 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 and its counsels failed to appear despite multiple opportunities and notices. The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) considered all necessary documents and submissions and passed speaking orders. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Section 263 proceedings were initiated beyond the limitation period. The limitation for issuing orders under Section 263 is to be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order, not the re-assessment order, especially when the issues in the Section 263 proceedings were not part of the re-assessment. The Tribunal found the impugned orders to be time-barred.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer for withdrawal, noting that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It was clarified that the appeal could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the Scheme benefit could not be availed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided in the affidavit and the lack of objection from the Revenue's representative. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the unfortunate circumstances. The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were sent via e-mail and ITBA portal which the Assessee could not see. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(E) was ex-parte and the Assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merit.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme and the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee, but a withdrawal application was moved citing the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. The Sr. DR did not object. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had applied for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified documents during the assessment proceedings, and accepted the returned income after due consideration. The Tribunal noted that the AO had initially misread the information regarding immovable property transactions, but the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence, including purchase deeds and bank/loan account details, in response to the PCIT's show cause notice. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadlani (2013) 355 ITR 172. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the reasons for reopening under Section 147/148 did not mention the purchase of immovable properties. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT failed to establish the erroneous character of the assessment order in a manner prejudicial to the revenue and that the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations. Therefore, the impugned order passed under Section 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that an unregistered agreement is a valid document for evidence and cannot be denied solely because it was not registered. The assessee explained the source of repayment from the sale of properties. The reassessment reopening is upheld, but the additions on merit are deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was computed was deleted by the CIT(A), there was no foundation for the penalty. The penalty was thus deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the facts and did not object to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the benefit of the scheme could not be availed due to technicalities, by filing a Misc. Application within the limitation period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the original assessee and her legal heir's circumstances. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry and analysis regarding the FDRs. The Tribunal held that the assessee has an explainable source for the deposits and no addition was called for.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated that the cash deposits were sourced from earlier withdrawals from her bank accounts and old savings. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities under Section 69A was incorrect.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. It also noted that the assessee could revive the appeal by filing a Misc. Application if they failed to avail the scheme's benefits due to technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee, being an NGO, deserves another opportunity to provide the necessary information and documentation. The matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed in the year when the relevant income has been offered to tax. The matter was set aside to the AO for necessary verification to allow TDS credit in the respective assessment years where mobilization advance has been adjusted and corresponding income has been offered.

The Tribunal noted the admitted position that the assessee had only made an investment of Rs. 1,19,000/- as verified by the AO during the remand proceedings, as against the original addition of Rs. 10,07,130/-. Consequently, the Tribunal held that only the amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- could be brought to tax. The addition was accordingly restricted to Rs. 1,19,000/-. The matter was remitted back to the file of the AO to determine the tax liability, if any, in the hands of the assessee based on this restricted amount. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the validity of the service of notice under Section 148, but implicitly accepted the assessee's claim of limited investment by restricting the addition.

The tribunal, noting no objection from the Sr. DR, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal by filing a Misc. Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if they are unable to avail the benefits of the scheme due to any technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee, being an NGO, deserves another opportunity to provide the necessary information and documentation. The matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 69/69A read with Section 115BBE for income already surrendered and offered by the assessee. It also directed the deletion of disallowances made on account of business expenses, finding the assessee's explanations reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in inferring suppression of sale consideration based on the comparative sale transaction of an adjacent plot with the same purchase cost. The explanation provided by the assessee regarding the difference in sale price due to infrastructure development was found to be illogical and unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal found that the additions were based on mathematical discrepancies arising from a single error in recording a cash withdrawal as a loan given. After reconciling the entries using bank statements and other documents, the Tribunal concluded that the amounts were either paid through banking channels or represented opening balances, and no unexplained investment or credit existed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved one last opportunity and could not be condemned unheard. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that sale of scrap during construction should reduce the cost of construction, not be taxed as income, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also held that written-off advances, if made in the course of business and confirmed as irrecoverable, are allowable as a business loss.

The Tribunal found that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS deducted under Section 194Q, as she acted as an agent and the turnover related to such transactions does not form part of her own turnover. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, sustaining the impugned order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee had placed on record various documents, including ITR, computation of income, VAT returns, cash transaction sheets, cash ledger, audit report, balance sheet, and P&L account, which were not expressly rejected by the AO. In the absence of rejection of these documents, the Tribunal held that no addition ought to have been made by the AO. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO had accepted the purchases and stock of the assessee and had not pointed out any discrepancy in the stock register. There was no documentary evidence to show that purchases were exaggerated or sales were manipulated. The AO had placed a theory without proof and had not made any enquiry on the material supplied by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO had wrongly made an addition under Section 69A when the money was recorded in the books of account, which would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s reliance on the decisions in *Chandra Surana* and *Smt. Tripta Rani*. The Revenue failed to bring any material on record to contend that the impugned order was bad in law. The explanation furnished by the assessee that the deposits were out of business receipts realized in cash, corroborated by sale bills, sale register, cash book, and VAT returns, was found to be reasonable. The Tribunal found no reason to accept the explanation partly and sustain the addition.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the addition to income was made on an estimated basis after rejection of books of account. The Tribunal noted that the estimation itself implies a lack of precise evidence and therefore, no intention to conceal or misrepresent income can be inferred.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO and CIT(A) failed to bring any adverse material to disprove the loan, and thus the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds parked in fixed deposits with scheduled banks is not attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members. Therefore, it is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. However, it was clarified that the appeal can be revived if the assessee fails to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds parked in fixed deposits with scheduled banks is not attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members. Therefore, it is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds parked in fixed deposits with scheduled banks is not attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members. Therefore, it is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount pertained to stock-in-trade and should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment under Section 69. Consequently, it should be taxed at the normal rate of 30%, not the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' made the appeal infructuous. It also clarified that the appeal could be revived if the assessee failed to get the full benefit of the scheme.