ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed when the addition is based on an estimation of fair market value by the DVO, as per Section 270A(6)(a). There was no evidence of the assessee having paid more than the sale deed price.

The Tribunal held that the gross receipts should not be taxed as total income without allowing corresponding expenditure. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed when the addition is based on an estimation of fair market value by the DVO, as per Section 270A(6)(a). There was no evidence of the assessee having paid more than the sale deed price.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to respond, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's delay in filing the appeal was bonafide. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate their claim. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the reasons for delay and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in taxing the entire gross receipts without allowing corresponding expenses, citing a High Court decision. The assessee is entitled to legitimate deductions even if treated as an AOP.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 and had filed Form No. 2, with acknowledgement number 868519141130225 dated 13.02.2025, for the assessment year 2018-19, towards the settlement of the pending tax dispute. Given these facts and the lack of opposition from the revenue, the Tribunal found that the appeal filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the AR. The Tribunal also clarified that it was open to the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arose concerning the settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 and that the Designated Authority had issued Form No. 2 dated 10.02.2025 for the settlement of the pending tax dispute. In view of these facts, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed in the written submission. The Tribunal also clarified that it was open to the assessee to approach the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application if any prejudice was caused concerning the settlement of the tax dispute under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the information relied upon was from a different assessment year and was not independently verified. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and suspicion, not belief.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) rightly held the addition based on peak credit, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the assessment year, only 50% of the peak credit addition determined by the CIT(A) (₹.3,89,125/-) is to be charged to tax.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the eligibility of the society and the source of cash deposits. Crucially, the Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore, had subsequently condoned the delay in filing the ROI for both assessment years. Since the sole ground for denying the Section 80P deduction (belated ROI) was rectified by the CCIT's order, the Tribunal held that the deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unjust and a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Company was cited.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the information relied upon was from a different assessment year and was not independently verified. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and suspicion, not belief.

The Tribunal held that the property in question was agricultural land and the transfer occurred in AY 2014-15, not AY 2016-17. Therefore, the STCG addition and related penalties were not sustainable for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the identity of the credit was established and the nature of the transaction was shown as an advance for property purchase. Even if considered a loan, it did not constitute income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide necessary explanations or documents to the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, subject to the condition of paying ₹5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to furnish details in response to the show-cause notice issued by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the property in question was agricultural land and the transfer occurred in AY 2014-15, not AY 2016-17. Therefore, the STCG addition and related penalties were not sustainable for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the eligibility of the society and the source of cash deposits. Crucially, the Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore, had subsequently condoned the delay in filing the ROI for both assessment years. Since the sole ground for denying the Section 80P deduction (belated ROI) was rectified by the CCIT's order, the Tribunal held that the deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing sufficient evidence for the cash deposits, explaining that withdrawals from multiple bank accounts were used to cover the deposits during the busy demonetization period. The Tribunal also held that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly allowed the reimbursement expenses after noting that the assessee had provided ledger extracts and other documentation, which the AO failed to disprove with any infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in taxing the entire gross receipts without allowing corresponding expenses, citing a High Court decision. The assessee is entitled to legitimate deductions even if treated as an AOP.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status as an agricultural credit society and the unprecedented circumstances. The Tribunal then proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on merits, allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide necessary explanations or documents to the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, subject to the condition of paying ₹5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.

The Tribunal held that the property in question was agricultural land and the transfer occurred in AY 2014-15, not AY 2016-17. Therefore, the STCG addition and related penalties were not sustainable for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the property in question was agricultural land and the transfer occurred in AY 2014-15, not AY 2016-17. Therefore, the STCG addition and related penalties were not sustainable for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the VSVS Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme was unsuccessful.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to pursue the other appeal and not this one. The Departmental Representative did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal heard the appeal and noted that the jurisdiction of the Bench is determined by the location of the AO. Since the AO was in Nagpur, the appeal should have been filed before the ITAT, Nagpur Bench. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal heard both sides and noted the assessee's opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee's Authorized Representative requested to withdraw the appeal, which was allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and requested the appeal be treated as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, while granting liberty to seek revival if the scheme settlement is unsuccessful.