ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that invoking revisional jurisdiction does not bar an assessee from filing an appeal, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be denied TDS credit if the tax has been deducted at source, as the responsibility to deposit the tax lies with the deductor. The department can recover the amount from the deductor.

The Tribunal held that since the DSIR certificate restricting the deduction was received after the return was filed, the assessee cannot be considered to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the AO should have limited the addition to the demonetization period deposits. However, due to inconsistencies in the provided cash details, the matter was restored to the AO for detailed verification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for concealment of income was not justified. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, the declaration of income made in response to a notice u/s.148, after a survey, should be treated as bonafide to buy peace with the department.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not pressed one ground due to an inadvertent mistake. For other grounds concerning exclusion of other income and double addition of interest, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass orders on rectification applications filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated natural justice by passing an ex parte order without proper opportunity to the assessee. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not pressed one ground due to an inadvertent mistake. For other grounds concerning exclusion of other income and double addition of interest, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass orders on rectification applications filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the invoices in question, though billed later, pertained to services rendered in the relevant financial year and should not have been excluded from export turnover for the Section 10A deduction.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the NFAC was not maintainable because the issues were identical to those already decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. It noted that the DRP rejected the objections solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case or the assessee's explanation regarding the receipt date of the draft order.

The Tribunal held that once a penalty is levied under Section 271A for not maintaining books of accounts, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited should not be levied. This is because the offense of not maintaining accounts is complete, and the subsequent requirement of audit becomes moot.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance is restricted to the actual exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for concealment of income was not justified. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, the declaration of income made in response to a notice u/s.148, after a survey, should be treated as bonafide to buy peace with the department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal. This was based on the assessee's expressed desire to withdraw and the filing of a separate appeal with another bench.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's application on its merits, in light of a recent CBDT circular extending the filing deadline. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal held that a mere mistake in filing the form should not invalidate the assessee's claim. The CIT(E) was directed to allow the assessee to correct the mistake and consider the application on its merits.

The tribunal held that a mere mistake in filing the form should not invalidate the assessee's claim. The CIT(E) was directed to allow the assessee an opportunity to correct the mistake and consider the application on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal extended the time limit for the assessee to remit the Rs. 10,000/-. The deadline is now to be read as 'on or before 27.05.2024' instead of 'on or before 28.03.2024'.

The tribunal held that the assessee could not adopt the registration authority's valuation as the cost of acquisition and that the provisions of Section 43CA or 56(2)(viib) did not aid the assessee. The issue of cost of improvement was restored to the AO for substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the year of taxability of capital gains was not within the scope of limited scrutiny. It also confirmed the AO's method for computing the cost of land and building, with a slight modification for the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the building as on 01-04-1981.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of agricultural income and the addition of unsubstantiated loans. Regarding the sale of land, the Tribunal confirmed that the sale consideration accrued to the assessee as business receipts but remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to allow substantiation of expenditure incurred.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for default without deciding the grounds.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable as the cash sales were reflected in the assessee's books and offered to tax, and the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to disprove the source. The interest disallowance was also deleted as the assessee had sufficient capital and no nexus was established between borrowed funds and the loan given.

The Tribunal held that the closure of business and surrender of PAN in November 2017 constituted a reasonable cause for non-representation during assessment. The credits from the partner were considered capital infusion, and sweep account transactions were deemed cyclical, not income.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the AO's action of assessing the entire sale consideration as unexplained credit. The assessee failed to provide evidence of genuine transactions.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in similar group matters, set aside the impugned orders. The appeals were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for effective hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in similar group matters, set aside the impugned orders. The appeals were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for effective hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in similar group matters, set aside the impugned orders. The appeals were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for effective hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in similar group matters, set aside the impugned orders. The appeals were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for effective hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in similar group matters, set aside the impugned orders. The appeals were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for effective hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal held that the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) after the assessee's death is a nullity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to implead the legal heirs and adjudicate the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal held that since all particulars were disclosed in the original return, and the assessee made an incorrect claim rather than concealing information, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, following a similar case, set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued without jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT clarification following a Supreme Court judgment, which stated that notices for AY 2013-14 onwards cannot be issued if the escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as in this case.

The tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and pay a cost of Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for the assessee to present its case, setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, set aside the impugned order to uphold the principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the minor delay of 89 days, citing adverse medical issues of the assessee. It directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on its merits without considering the delay.

The ITAT, while agreeing with the respondent, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice.

The tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues of Section 80P deduction and interest expenditure to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, citing the principle of natural justice. This was granted on the condition of the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing was to be granted.