Loading ITAT cases…
337 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in enhancing the income of the assessee without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The Tribunal noted that Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that the Ld.CIT(A) must give notice of enhancement and provide an opportunity to the assessee before making any direction for enhancement. Since the impugned directions by the Ld.CIT(A) amounted to an enhancement, the Tribunal found that the prescribed procedure under Section 251 was not followed. This failure was considered an arbitrary action. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and restored the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance with law after hearing the assessee, who is also directed to file all relevant documents and written submissions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating undisclosed income admitted without basis, especially when books of accounts were not rejected. The deletion of additions related to distribution rights and production expenses by the CIT(A) was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 251 of the Act by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before enhancing the income. This was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, including reserves, surplus, and share application money, to cover the investments and advances made to its subsidiary. Therefore, the presumption is that these were made out of own funds, not business loans.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, including reserves, surplus, and share application money, to cover the investments and advances made to its subsidiary. Therefore, the presumption is that these were made out of own funds, not business loans.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, including reserves, surplus, and share application money, to cover the investments and advances made to its subsidiary. Therefore, the presumption is that these were made out of own funds, not business loans.
Given that the Ld.DR did not oppose the withdrawal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently offered advances as income in subsequent years, and taxing them in the current year would lead to double taxation. However, an anomaly was noted regarding specific advances. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute the loss as income from other sources was set off twice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that justice should not be denied on technical grounds regarding additional evidence. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to present their case, subject to the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, noting that there was no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the condition of filing Form 67 along with the ROI is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since the assessee filed Form 67 before the intimation was passed, the claim for FTC ought to have been allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the notices were not properly served on the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the notice might not have been served on the assessee as it went to the spam account. Considering this as a violation of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restored the application for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the exorbitant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons provided by the assessee were found to be insufficient to condone the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in the cases of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., held that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped. Since the notice in this case was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, it was quashed.
The Tribunal held that 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' are distinct charges with different connotations. Since the notice did not specify the exact charge and the penalty order was for concealment while the notice covered both, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's petition for additional evidence and the submissions of the DR, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court's interpretation of the Goetze (India) Ltd. judgment, held that an appellate authority can entertain new claims not made in the original ROI. It ruled that the FAA was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim under Section 80P and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the assessee's entitlement to this deduction.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeev Bansal and the jurisdictional Madras High Court, held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the New Regime on 28.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the specified 'surviving period'. Therefore, the re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance with notices from both the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the interest of justice and the need to comply with the revision order under Section 263, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish details and decide the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO had accepted the source of cash deposits made on later dates from the same donor, but disregarded deposits made on earlier dates from the same donor solely due to a mismatch in dates mentioned in a confirmation letter. The Tribunal found the explanation regarding the dates to be a clerical mistake and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided acceptable explanations and supporting documents for most of the cash deposits, including rental income, loans from friends and relatives, and gifts. The Tribunal granted credit for these amounts, significantly reducing the addition.
The Tribunal held that it was not discernible whether the assessee followed a cash or mercantile system of accounting. The substantial sum was received on 06.04.2016 for services rendered in the financial year 2015-16. Since the assessee did not file a return for the subsequent year disclosing this receipt, the AO was correct in bringing it to tax in the relevant assessment year 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,11,500 needed to be examined afresh, and accordingly restored it to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding the addition of Rs. 11,00,000 as unexplained cash credit, the Tribunal found that the loans and their repayment were through banking channels and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO and FAA were incorrect in rejecting the source of the Rs. 4,45,000/- cash deposit. Given the significant cash withdrawals exceeding the total deposits, there was no reason to disallow the deposit made on 28.11.2016.
The Tribunal noted a disparity in the turnover figures claimed by the assessee (Rs. 72,73,074/-) and those used by the AO and FAA (Rs. 1,44,73,000/-). To resolve this discrepancy and ensure justice, the matter was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the grounds, it was found that grounds 1 and 7 were general and dismissed, and ground 6 was not pressed. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a net profit rate of 4.75% instead of the initially assessed 7% or the FAA's 6%.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as it was based solely on the contractor's sworn statement without supporting documentary evidence. The assessee had claimed expenses related to the actual area of land sold, and the contractor's statement about a larger area was not corroborated.
The Tribunal held that petrol and diesel sales from stations authorized by Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies were exempted and entitled to receive Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) up to 31.12.2016. Therefore, the cash deposits from such sales were not unexplained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It also directed the Assessing Officer to compute the net income after allowing admissible expenditures, rather than taxing the gross receipts, following previous ITAT and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal permitted the appeal to be withdrawn and accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn. It was clarified that the assessee retains the option to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises from the settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The Tribunal held that the original return clearly disclosed the foreign dividend income. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 was issued without any escapement of income. The reassessment order was quashed as there was no escapement of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's age and health issues. It considered CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, which allows for no further verification for senior citizens' cash deposits up to Rs. 5,00,000/- without business income. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's regular income history and cited relevant case laws to find the addition under Section 69A unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,23,000/- on account of cash deposits was covered by withdrawals from the assessee's husband's bank account. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 as a return of advance for agricultural land, which was not materialized, was sufficiently supported by evidence like confirmation letters and the audited balance sheet. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had income from house property, agricultural income, etc., and made payments through bank transfers, they did not provide complete details regarding the source of credits. However, considering past disclosures and the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to explain the source of credit card payments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80P as the return of income was not filed within the prescribed due date, citing Section 80AC(ii) of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.