ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal were indeed filed by the assessee, as evidenced by the paper book. Therefore, the ex-parte order was based on a wrong assumption of fact.

The Tribunal found that the AO primarily rejected the assessee's explanation due to non-response from the sellers of agricultural land to notices. However, confirmations from these sellers were later provided. The CIT(A) also did not consider this additional evidence. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for examination of the sellers' confirmations.

The Tribunal, upholding the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the assessee had not been given sufficient opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee showed inadequate submission of details, the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clear facts or enquiries. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the Ld. AO for de novo re-adjudication, directing the AO to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee one last opportunity to present its case and comply with notices.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee during the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in law by passing the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 along with a demand notice without first issuing a draft assessment order as required by Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This omission rendered the assessment order wholly without jurisdiction and unenforceable. The Tribunal further held that the subsequent corrigendum issued on 23.01.2019, attempting to treat the earlier order as a draft, was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(3) read with Section 153(5) of the Act, which expired on 31.12.2018. Consequently, the corrigendum and all subsequent actions, including the DRP's directions and the AO's final assessment order dated 22.11.2019, were also considered without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. and other precedents. The assessment order dated 30.12.2018 and the demand notice dated 30.12.2018 were quashed as nullities. The appeal was allowed on the legal issue, rendering other issues academic.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSVS scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's withdrawal request due to opting into the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty for the assessee to approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises.

The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction as the AO relied solely on the survey report without conducting independent inquiries. The additions were therefore not substantiated.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity by the lower authorities and that new documents were produced. Relying on the principle of natural justice and Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to file all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ignored the evidence filed by the assessee and passed a cryptic order. For the ends of justice, it was decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to prove the source of capital.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'members' under the TNCS Act includes associate members. Therefore, the AO erred in distinguishing between 'A' Class members and associate members. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee society operates within its taluk, provides long-term credit for agricultural and rural development, and is a primary agricultural cooperative credit society, thus entitled to the benefit of Section 80P. The Tribunal also found that the First Appellate Authority had not decided the issue on merits and set aside the order to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals based on Section 249(4)(b) as advance tax is not payable on disputed additions. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's lack of education and circumstances.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A. It held that the assessment order was not in accordance with the law, thereby quashing it as invalid.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was due to the assessee failing to file requisite documents to substantiate its claim and demonstrate the applicability of case laws, and also because no adjudication was done on the disallowance under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal noted that the grounds related to leave encashment and 80G deduction were either infructuous or not pressed. For the CSR expenditure, the Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to verify the assessee's claim of prior self-disallowance and delete the amount if it indeed resulted in double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for deposit with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the settlement is unsuccessful.

The Tribunal noted the assessee submitted additional documents for the HUF, including returns, financials, and bank balances. Observing that similar additions for a later AY were deleted by the CIT(A) and that the bank transactions appeared accounted for in the HUF books, the Tribunal restored the assessment to the AO for limited verification. If the bank account was already accounted for by the HUF, no separate addition should be made to the individual's income.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in recasting the cash flow statement without confronting the assessee. The Tribunal found that the credits in the NRO accounts were from group entities and loans against FDRs, supported by bank statements and FDR details, and thus could not be considered unexplained money.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status and the principles of natural justice. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., the Tribunal held that the denial of deduction for a belated return under Chapter VIA is legally sustainable.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite the delay, citing the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh consideration, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's challenge to the excise duty refund addition under normal provisions was still pending. To ensure a consistent stand, the Tribunal restored the issue of adjustment of refund of excise duty under Section 115JB, along with the challenge under normal provisions, to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in accordance with law.

The Tribunal affirmed that deductions under Chapter VIA are admissible only if the return is filed within the prescribed due date, aligning with a Madras High Court precedent. However, recognizing the provision for condonation of delay under Section 119, the case was remanded to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to reconsider the assessee's claim in light of any condonation application filed within three months, failing which the disallowance will be sustained.