ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the cash balance. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition was justified.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty for non-compliance with multiple notices under Section 142(1) should be restricted to the first default. The penalty was reduced to ₹.10,000/- for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to comply with notices, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should not be levied for each and every notice. The penalty was restricted to the first default.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for DTVSV-2024 and the Ld.DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the DTVSV-2024 scheme and had filed a request to withdraw the appeals, with no objection from the Ld.DR.

The Tribunal held that the loose sheets were 'dumb documents' lacking any evidentiary value and could not be used to make additions. The statements relied upon were found to be unreliable, biased, and not corroborated by any independent evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to establish a valid satisfaction note and thus lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the third-party diary notings lacked corroborative evidence and were a "dumb document," insufficient to sustain the addition, especially since the property transaction never materialized. It held that the assessee's Section 132(4) statement, validly retracted and made under alleged duress, could not be relied upon, and the Revenue failed to discharge its onus of proving the income in the hands of the 'right person'.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was correct, relying on its own prior ruling. It found that the amendment to Section 194A, which would have made recurring deposits taxable, was applicable only from AY 2015-16 and not for the assessment year 2010-11 in question.

The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the assessee to withdraw both appeals, which were consequently dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee retains the right to approach it again if any prejudice arises from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the relevant evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of assistance to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) notices. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present complete details.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBC(3) only requires the maintenance of records indicating the identity (name and address) of the donors, not necessarily the source or creditworthiness, especially when such donations are applied for charitable purposes. The AO and CIT(A) erred in applying Section 68 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the partnership firm, consisting of only two partners, stood dissolved upon the death of one partner. Therefore, the sale of the asset and the resulting capital gains should have been taxed in the hands of the legal heirs, not the dissolved firm. The PCIT's order was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities passed orders without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were not sustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search, and in some cases, the material itself was not properly authenticated or admissible as evidence.

The Tribunal held that in cases of abated assessments following a search, the return filed in response to Section 153C notice is considered a return under Section 139, and fresh claims are permissible. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to lodge the claim for deduction under Section 80-IA.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeals under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 355 days, finding reasonable cause and no latches on the part of the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after considering the condonation petition.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the condition of payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the return of income had been condoned by the DGIT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income under capital gains. To verify the correctness of transactions and the amount deducted from business income, the Tribunal remitted the file back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the appeal after finding the reasons bona fide. Subsequently, it dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 for settlement of the tax dispute.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the belated filing. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, provided the delay is condoned by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee was allowed to withdraw both appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was without prejudice to any future application by the assessee regarding the settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 426 days in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional upon the assessee paying ₹10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days, after which the Assessing Officer must consider the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals. It accepted significant portions of the claimed sources for cash deposits, including rent advances (partially for AY 2010-11), cash withdrawals from bank accounts (for AY 2010-11 and AY 2012-13), gifts from her husband (for AY 2011-12), and substantial agricultural income (for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14). It also allowed 50% of the capital contribution claimed as own source (for AY 2011-12) and deleted the addition of unexplained fee receipts (for AY 2012-13) to prevent double taxation. The disallowance of interest payment on borrowed capital for hostel renovation was also allowed (for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12). For Long Term Capital Gains (AY 2012-13), the AO was directed to adopt the sale consideration as per the registered deed, and the Section 54 exemption claim was remanded for verification. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed due to prior relief.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished some bills, photographs, and bank statements explaining the source of cash deposits. To meet the ends of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that various additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for certain cash inflows and directed the AO to delete those additions. However, some grounds were dismissed or not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s findings on various grounds were generally upheld. While some additions were deleted by the CIT(A) and not challenged further by the revenue, the Tribunal reviewed the remaining grounds. The Tribunal found that the methodology used by the AO and DVO for estimating quantities and values was flawed and not substantiated. It also considered the retraction of statements by key witnesses and the lack of corroborative evidence as critical factors. Several additions were deleted due to these reasons, while others were confirmed as per the CIT(A)'s adjudication. The appeals filed by the revenue were largely dismissed, with some of the assessee's grounds being allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Since the scheme aims to settle pending tax disputes, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn. The Cross Objection also became academic and was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of non-cooperation from the auditor and lack of awareness due to e-proceedings. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, subject to payment of costs and condonation of delay.

The Tribunal, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for re-consideration. The assessee was granted another opportunity for hearing to substantiate its application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the extraordinary personal circumstances of the Managing Director. The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to represent their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the current appeals, acknowledging the Managing Director's personal hardships. In the interest of justice and fair play, it remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, noting the non-receipt of hearing notices for the original appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Additional/JCIT(A) in the interest of justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the file of the Additional/JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) omitted to consider the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) despite allowing exemption under Sections 11 & 12. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the inclusion of building fund in gross receipts and the depreciation claim required re-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Addl/JCIT(A) and directed the Addl/JCIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.