Loading ITAT cases…
159 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal has considered the findings of the AO and the CIT(A). It noted that the assessee appeared before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) passed the appellate order without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim regarding the corpus fund/grant in aid. The AO is to pass an order on this issue after providing the assessee with due opportunity as required by law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation regarding the source of deposits through affidavits, and the Department failed to provide contrary evidence. The deeming provision of Section 69 could not be invoked as the source of deposits was identified.
The assessee's counsel submitted an application for withdrawal of the appeal, stating that the assessee was not interested in pursuing it. The Ld. DR did not object.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the same, and admitted the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was legally invalid because it was issued after the mandatory Faceless Reassessment Scheme notification, which requires such notices to be issued through automated allocation. Thus, the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, in view of the assessee's decision to opt for the DTVSV-2024 scheme and withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, and the issue of delay was not to be raised.
The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor were established through documentary evidence, including PAN, MCA data, ROC filings, and bank statements. A mere clerical error in the name did not warrant disregarding the transaction.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the period of delay, restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed not to raise the issue of delay.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment solely on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing without concrete documentary evidence against the assessee is not a valid reason. The assessment order was quashed due to the vitiated reopening proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Regarding the addition of Rs. 24,82,734/- under section 68, the Tribunal held that section 68 cannot be invoked when no sum is found credited in the books in the relevant previous year, and the balances are opening balances carried forward from the preceding year. The CIT(A) rightly followed the decisions in Sanjay Mehta v. ACIT and PCIT v. Topline Buildtech (P) Ltd. On the disallowance of GST expense of Rs. 12,38,488/-, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the payment was made under statutory compulsion due to suppliers' failure to remit collected tax, crystallizing as a business debt written off or business expenditure allowable under section 36(1)(vii) or section 37(1), relying on Pr. CIT v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Concerning the addition on unverifiable purchases of Rs. 5,07,64,711/-, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition to the average GP of 0.84%, as sales were accepted, books were not rejected, and payments were through banking channels. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions holding that no addition on account of GP is warranted when sales are accepted and stock is verifiable. For the difference in purchases of Rs. 1,23,82,913/-, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion as the CIT(A) noted a factual miscomparison by the AO, and a complete reconciliation supported by invoices and bank payments was filed.
The tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and the additional evidences, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication of the Rs.7.02 Lacs addition. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's background. It directed the AO to re-compute income by applying a 3% profit rate on balance receipts.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice. The issue of delay was not to be raised by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since TDS was deducted against the assessee's payment and it was the assessee's money that was deducted, the credit for the TDS is allowable to the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to present and prove their case effectively.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of the business loss claim. The assessee was instructed to provide sufficient documents and evidence to prove its case.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to present its case and substantiate it before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoning the delay, and set aside the impugned order. The AO was directed to frame a de novo assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO, instead of the FAO as mandated by the faceless scheme, vitiates the assessment proceedings. The addition made by the AO was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO instead of the FAO, as required by the faceless assessment scheme, vitiates the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the impugned assessment order and the additions made by the AO are quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is contrary to the mandatory faceless scheme notified under Section 151A. This vitiates the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus by providing adequate documentation and explanations. The rejection of books of accounts by the AO was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the land in question was situated within 8 kilometers of the municipal limits of Jagadhri, based on the Inspector's report and the failure of the assessee to produce the sale deed. Therefore, it was considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without appreciating the cause shown by the assessee, which was due to the CA's lapse. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no incriminating material or corroborating evidence for the alleged cash payment, even after specifically directing the Revenue to produce such proof. The original digital entry itself denoted bank payment, contradicting the AO's conclusion. Citing a High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material, especially when the assessee was not searched and the material belonged to a third party. Thus, the addition was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that cash received from an HUF is exempt u/s 10(2) of the Act, as an HUF is a group of relatives and money withdrawn is from the contributor's own resources. The addition for AY 2020-21 was deleted based on this reasoning and precedents.
Considering the factual matrix and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal. The CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate the case on its merits, with the assessee given the opportunity to present its arguments. The appeal before the Tribunal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that cash received from an HUF is exempt u/s 10(2) of the Act, as an HUF is a group of relatives and money withdrawn is from the contributor's own resources. The addition for AY 2020-21 was deleted based on this reasoning and precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of the mere provision for gratuity under Section 40A(7) was correct. However, it considered a new plea that a certain sum was actually paid towards LIC premium and another sum as gratuity debiting the provision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate these specific payments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal at the threshold due to the failure to satisfy the statutory pre-condition of paying advance tax or seeking exemption. The claim of dissolution and continuation as a proprietorship was not supported by credible evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay, demonstrating sufficient cause as per Section 249(3) of the Act. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating the merits was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Judicial Member found the explanations furnished by the assessee for the delay to be vague, general, and wholly unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted the absence of any material demonstrating sincere efforts by the assessee to ascertain the status of her case from her representatives. The Tribunal expressed disapproval of the practice of attributing blame for delay to professionals without supporting material. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others, the Tribunal held that the factual matrix of the present appeal was squarely covered by the ratio laid down in that case. The reasons provided in the assessee's affidavit were deemed insufficient to establish any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the request for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Regarding the unexplained jewellery, the Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated that the jewellery was acquired in the past and worn by family members on social occasions, supported by photographs. The Tribunal noted that the Department itself granted the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 1916, acknowledging the difficulty in tracking bills and payments, and the possibility of jewellery being received at social occasions or redesigned from old jewellery. The Tribunal concluded that the Department failed to produce incriminating material suggesting the jewellery was purchased during the search period from unexplained resources. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 46,96,225/- was deleted. Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 of the Revenue's appeal were rejected. Concerning the Rs. 10 lacs expenditure, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the receipt was not found from the assessee's premises, and the Revenue failed to prove its ownership or link to the assessee. The Tribunal noted the absence of a statement from Shri Kuldeep Singh admitting the receipt belonged to the assessee or that the money was advanced. The Tribunal agreed that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence, and the addition was made on presumptions. Thus, no interference was called for on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's persistent failure to comply with directions and provide relevant evidence, coupled with the submission of irrelevant documents, demonstrated a pattern of disregard and non-compliance. Therefore, no further indulgence could be granted.
The Tribunal, relying on several High Court and its own previous judgments, held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer constituted a jurisdictional error, making the re-assessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the re-assessment order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the purchases by providing documentary evidence and making payments through banking channels. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee regarding third-party statements violated natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's selection of the incorrect clause was an inadvertent error. Since the assessee otherwise fulfills the conditions for registration, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that remittances from the assessee's foreign bank account to his Indian account, representing movement of capital, are not taxable in India. However, unexplained cash deposits and a credit entry from a third party were confirmed as additions.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable on facts. The assessee is a corporate entity with regular cash flows from its business of selling ply-boards, and its books of accounts were not found faulty. Making additions based on mere suspicion or by ignoring the assessee's books of accounts is fallacious.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the purchases by providing documentary evidence and making payments through banking channels. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee regarding third-party statements violated natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2012-13 was based on a misconception of facts, as the assessee had filed a return and offered interest income. The Tribunal also noted that the AO initially alleged higher escaped income but later accepted the offered amount. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not provided any contradictory documents to the assessee's submissions regarding the notice issuance date and the email communication. The Tribunal found that the issue of notice under Section 148 being issued after the statutory period was squarely covered by decisions of coordinate benches, including Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd. Chandigarh vs PCIT Chandigarh, which referred to numerous judgments and decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to a High Court judgment in the case of Deepak Sibal, which quashed a notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in a faceless assessment scenario, holding it to be without jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were not sustainable in law and were accordingly quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the case as the legal grounds were decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2012-13 was based on a misconception of facts, as the assessee had filed a return and offered interest income. The Tribunal also noted that the AO initially alleged higher escaped income but later accepted the offered amount. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the statement of Shri Vikas Vats to GST authorities could not be relied upon for IT proceedings, especially since it was retracted. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the source of Rs. 44.80 Lacs from cash sales was explained and supported by audited books and GST returns, which the AO did not dispute.
The Tribunal held that the Department failed to provide incriminating material to suggest the jewellery was purchased during the search period from unexplained resources, allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the addition of Rs. 46,96,225. Regarding the Rs. 10 lacs receipt, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that it was not found from the assessee's premises and lacked corroborative evidence, thus rejecting the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal remanded the addition of ₹35 lakhs related to three HUFs back to the CIT(A) for detailed verification of newly presented fund flow and documents, imposing a cost of ₹3000 on the assessee for late submission. The addition of ₹5 lakhs from Smt. Sushma Kabra was deleted, as her identity, creditworthiness, and loan repayment were established, with no contrary evidence from lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to freshly examine the documents now filed by the assessee to prove the source of the cash deposit. If the assessee successfully demonstrates the source, the addition shall be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoned the delay, and directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment. The assessee was instructed to present its case and provide proof.