Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details for verification and then decide the application afresh.
The Tribunal held that a legal ground challenging jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The assessment order was found to be bad in law.
The Tribunal directed the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and decide the disputes on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowing them to furnish fresh evidence or additional grounds.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that legal grounds can be raised at any stage. It was found that the assessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the procedure established by the Hon'ble High Court.
The Tribunal held that a legal ground challenging jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including before the Tribunal, as per Supreme Court precedent. It further held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC was bad in law because it was issued without proper adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 148A, quashing the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, but the assessment was completed by the Faceless mechanism without proper procedure, citing the Mark Studio India case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not expand the scope of a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 263 to include domestic purchases, as the AO had confined the original scrutiny to the specified limited issues. However, noting a discrepancy in import figures, the Tribunal directed the AO to specifically reconcile these figures. The PCIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 regarding domestic purchases was declared flawed.
The ITAT condoned the delay, deeming it not inordinate and in the interest of justice, subject to a payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The matter was remitted back to the FAA for adjudication on merits, setting aside the FAA's dismissal order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation application before the CBDT for delay in filing revised returns, which was pending. Since the outcome of this application could render the current appeals infructuous, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the FAA to await the CBDT's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the FAA's orders, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal set aside the FAA's orders, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the FAA's orders, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had observed that the ledger account of 'Mine Development Expenses', being part of the regular books of account, could not be considered incriminating material discovered during the search. Furthermore, since the assessments for these years were unabated at the time of the search, and in the absence of independent incriminating material suggesting the books were sham, the additions could not be sustained. Regarding unaccounted cash receipts based on excel sheets found from a group concern, the CIT(A) held that this material, not seized from the assessee's premises, could not justify additions under Section 153A without corroborating incriminating material relatable to the assessee. The Tribunal, referencing a binding precedent from a coordinate bench in the case of the assessee's sister concern (V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd.), found that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the excel sheet entries and the assessee's business affairs, and no corroborative evidence was brought on record. The Tribunal concluded that the mere presence of names or figures in an unsigned and unverified electronic document, without corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for additions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal heard both appeals together due to similar facts and grounds. The assessee argued that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal as no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment was pending at the time of search.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the AO passed an order without considering the assessee's submissions and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-participation, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be branded as bogus solely due to a reporting error in VAT returns, especially when payments were made through banking channels and the assessee's books were not rejected. However, to meet the ends of justice, a disallowance of 10% of the disputed amount was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a prudent explanation for the source of the cash deposit, tracing it to earlier withdrawals from EPF and a housing loan. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The ITAT condoned the delay, deeming it not inordinate and in the interest of justice, subject to a payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The matter was remitted back to the FAA for adjudication on merits, setting aside the FAA's dismissal order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had observed that the ledger account of 'Mine Development Expenses', being part of the regular books of account, could not be considered incriminating material discovered during the search. Furthermore, since the assessments for these years were unabated at the time of the search, and in the absence of independent incriminating material suggesting the books were sham, the additions could not be sustained. Regarding unaccounted cash receipts based on excel sheets found from a group concern, the CIT(A) held that this material, not seized from the assessee's premises, could not justify additions under Section 153A without corroborating incriminating material relatable to the assessee. The Tribunal, referencing a binding precedent from a coordinate bench in the case of the assessee's sister concern (V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd.), found that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the excel sheet entries and the assessee's business affairs, and no corroborative evidence was brought on record. The Tribunal concluded that the mere presence of names or figures in an unsigned and unverified electronic document, without corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for additions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had observed that the ledger account of 'Mine Development Expenses', being part of the regular books of account, could not be considered incriminating material discovered during the search. Furthermore, since the assessments for these years were unabated at the time of the search, and in the absence of independent incriminating material suggesting the books were sham, the additions could not be sustained. Regarding unaccounted cash receipts based on excel sheets found from a group concern, the CIT(A) held that this material, not seized from the assessee's premises, could not justify additions under Section 153A without corroborating incriminating material relatable to the assessee. The Tribunal, referencing a binding precedent from a coordinate bench in the case of the assessee's sister concern (V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd.), found that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the excel sheet entries and the assessee's business affairs, and no corroborative evidence was brought on record. The Tribunal concluded that the mere presence of names or figures in an unsigned and unverified electronic document, without corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for additions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that the ledger entries for 'Mine Development Expenses' were part of regular books and not incriminating material. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the Revenue failed to prove payments exceeding the statutory limit to any single individual.
The Tribunal heard both appeals together due to similar facts and grounds. The assessee argued that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal as no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment was pending at the time of search.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to respond to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on three different occasions. However, the nature of the default was identical in all three instances. The Tribunal observed that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act can be imposed only in respect of one default, as its purpose is deterrent, not revenue generation. Imposing penalties for each notice would lead to a multiplicity of penalties for a single underlying default, which is not the legislative intent. The appropriate remedy for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) is to proceed under Section 144 for a best judgment assessment, not to repeatedly levy penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for the same default. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to one instance of non-compliance with the notice dated 13.11.2021. The penalty was confirmed at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-, and the penalty to the extent of Rs.20,000/- was deleted. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.
The Tribunal took judicial notice of the fact that a similar appeal was already heard and decided by the Cochin Bench. Therefore, the current appeal was held to be infructuous and non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated, additions not based on incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time due to medical treatment and unawareness of notices. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to frame the assessment order de novo, in accordance with the law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was advised to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents. The Tribunal also levied a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the assessee, payable to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon'ble High Court of Madras, with proof of payment to be submitted within 30 days. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The sole issue was the justification of the CIT(A)'s direction to grant TDS credit of Rs.75,64,754/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had originally claimed TDS credit of Rs.2,04,74,986/-, which was allowed by the AO. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), an additional claim for TDS credit based on Form 26AS was made and accepted. The Tribunal found it unclear why the assessee had initially restricted its claim when Form 26AS showed a higher amount. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the correctness of the differential TDS amount of Rs.75,64,754/-. The assessee was directed to furnish a reconciliation statement. If the AO was satisfied with the explanation for the additional TDS claim, it would be granted in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO after the notification of the e-assessment scheme were invalid as they were not issued in a faceless manner. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from the bank and the opening cash balance constituted valid sources for the cash deposits. However, the claim regarding realization from sundry debtors was not accepted due to lack of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found no incriminating material to justify additions under Section 153A, especially since regular assessments were already completed and books of account were not rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation application before the CBDT for delay in filing revised returns, which was pending. Since the outcome of this application could render the current appeals infructuous, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the FAA to await the CBDT's decision.
The Tribunal found discrepancies regarding the submission of documents and the passing of ex-parte orders. It restored both appeals to the FAA for a fresh examination, directing the FAA to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order, deprecating the assessee's attitude but noting the order was non-speaking and failed to adjudicate grounds. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A, without corroborative evidence, are not sustainable. The stock discrepancy found in a later assessment year cannot be added to an earlier assessment year without independent findings.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, supported by the statement of an agent and entries in audited books of account, could not be rejected solely for accepting specified bank notes. The addition made under Section 69A was not justified.
The Tribunal found discrepancies regarding the submission of documents and the passing of ex-parte orders. It restored both appeals to the FAA for a fresh examination, directing the FAA to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the seized loose sheets did not constitute 'money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article' as required by Section 69A, and thus the addition was unsustainable on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given multiple opportunities by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) but failed to provide any compliance or evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative (Ld.AR) stated that one of the appeals was not being pressed and requested it be dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the appeal against the Section 153A order as infructuous was justified because the issue of classifying gains from sale of land as capital gains had already attained finality in previous proceedings before the ITAT.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the seized loose sheets did not constitute 'money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article' as required by Section 69A. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s finding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 153C.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had filed some details, they failed to provide a complete explanation with supporting documents against a specific show-cause notice. However, considering the assessee's undertaking to furnish the required explanation, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the AO under Section 271AAB(1A) of the Act for AY 2021-22, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,39,98,544/-, was legally unsustainable and vitiated due to a defective show-cause notice dated 27.03.2022. The AO failed to specify whether the penalty was proposed under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 271AAB(1A), which is a mandatory requirement. This omission renders the penalty proceedings fundamentally defective, depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity to respond. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in PCIT v. Shri R. Elangovan and various co-ordinate bench decisions, which held that such a failure vitiates the penalty proceedings and renders the penalty order unsustainable. Consequently, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue failed to raise specific grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s findings on legal grounds, making the appeal exercise futile. The appeals concerning penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt, but the overarching result indicates they were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was bad in law and without jurisdiction as it was based on a change of opinion and re-appraisal of facts already on record, without any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal ruled that the revenue, having accepted the assessee's income as commission and the source of deposits in the quantum assessment, could not contradict this in penalty proceedings. It clarified that only the commission income, not the gross collections, should be considered for the Section 44AB threshold, and since the commission did not exceed it, the penalty under Section 271B was not justified.