Loading ITAT cases…
346 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the TAR within the due date was a technical breach, and the due date fell within the exclusion period granted by the Supreme Court due to Covid-19. The TAR was filed before the assessment order was framed, and the delay was attributed to Covid-19 related issues, not deliberate omission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering that the assessee had initially filed appeals promptly and was unaware of the subsequent proceedings due to the migration to the Faceless Regime. The condonation was subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹10,000 to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal held that there was a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before it. The assessee provided a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, citing issues with auditor appointment and the Corona Pandemic. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently filed returns in previous and subsequent years, and the delay in filing for AY 2015-16 was due to the serious illness and eventual death of the auditor who was responsible for uploading the Tax Audit Report and ROI. The Tribunal considered this a reasonable cause as per Section 273B of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering that the assessee had initially filed appeals promptly and was unaware of the subsequent proceedings due to the migration to the Faceless Regime. The condonation was subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹10,000 to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Due to the assessee's non-participation before the AO and CIT(A), a cost of Rs. 20,000/- was levied. The order of CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire alleged suppressed turnover as income is unsustainable. The Assessing Officer failed to establish that the assessee earned income equal to the gross sales. The Tribunal found that the manipulation detected was sales-centric, not purchase-related, and that purchases made without invoices were incapable of entering the accounting system. The presence of barcodes does not validate recorded purchases. The AO failed to provide primary evidence like supplier invoices or bank trails for unrecorded purchases. The Tribunal noted that no undisclosed cash, excess stock, or investments commensurate with the alleged turnover were found. The limited jewellery investment was explained by the offered gross profit. The Tribunal concluded that applying a 100% profit rate to suppressed sales is unrealistic and legally impermissible. Therefore, only the gross profit element embedded in the suppressed turnover could be brought to tax. Since the assessee had voluntarily offered such gross profit, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted. The AO was directed to accept the income offered by the assessee on a gross profit basis for all three assessment years. The legal issues raised were left undecided as the appeals were decided on merits.
The tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, considering the stay order and subsequent vacation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee also claimed an additional sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as 'early bird incentive' and 'group participation incentive'. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal remitted the issue of verification of these incentives to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the application should be considered under the amended provisions of Section 80G(5) introduced by the Finance Act, 2024, which allows filing at any time after commencement of activities. The CIT(E)'s rejection was deemed incorrect as the order was passed after the amendment came into force.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's claim of income sources, they noted the lack of complete substantiation. The Tribunal decided to delete 50% of the addition and sustain the remaining 50%, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the tax at 30% on the sustained addition, as the deposits were made before April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,74,26,047/-. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the facts and submissions, and the AO had failed to establish that these advances were from anonymous sources.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to satisfy the additional condition precedent for reopening assessment after four years, as the assessee had disclosed all material facts. The reopening notice and reassessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 157 days in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal considered the assessee to be a Primary Co-operative Credit Society and noted the ill-health of its Secretary, attributing the delay to Covid-19 complications and hospitalization. The delay was condoned subject to the assessee remitting a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon'ble Madras High Court, within three months and producing proof of deposit. Consequently, the quantum appeal was set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Regarding the penalty appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty partly due to the dismissal of the quantum appeal and the assessee's failure to substantiate its grounds. Since the quantum appeal was restored, the penalty appeal was also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the grounds of appeal as per Section 250(6) of the Act, with the assessee directed to participate and file written submissions/documents. The Ld. CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, finding that its non-submission before lower authorities was not wilful and was essential for substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.
The assessee pleaded that the appeal be disposed of as withdrawn. The Tribunal accepted the plea and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without calling for the AO's comments and without giving the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause. However, regarding the significant delay before the FAA, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the cause for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the FAA to reconsider the delay and, if condoned, to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA. Since the lower authorities made additions without considering the merits, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the medical records indicated the Accountant was ill from 07.10.2023 to 07.11.2023 and under medication until 01.12.2023. However, there was no explanation for the delay in filing the appeal from 21.10.2022 to 07.10.2023.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance was due to reasonable cause, citing lack of technical expertise, dependence on a consultant, and absence of an internal tax mechanism. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court observations emphasizing that penalties should not be imposed without conscious breach of law or deliberate defiance.
The Tribunal held that the 'Ind AS Transition Reserve', including foreign-currency translation adjustments, fair-value adjustments of investments, provisions for fly-ash liability, and mine-restoration obligation, are legitimate components of the transition amount. These are eligible for spreading over five years as per Section 115JB(2C).
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 4,31,74,678/- after verifying that the export sales were declared in the profit and loss account and return of income under the new PAN, and that the earlier PAN was not updated in the IE code. The interest income addition was deleted as it was offered to tax in subsequent years, preventing double addition.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts, citing multiple defects and non-compliance with TDS provisions. However, considering the nature of government contracts and competitive bidding, the Tribunal reduced the estimated income to 6% of gross receipts from the 8% estimated by the FAA.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and dependence on a tax consultant. The lower authorities made additions without going into the merits.
The tribunal held that the unexplained investment of Rs. 89,00,000/- was funded from accumulated unaccounted income from the assessee's garment business, which was accepted by the AO in a prior AY. Regarding the stock difference addition of Rs. 74,26,335/-, the tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence not presented to the AO, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, this issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that for the disallowance on unverified payments, the assessee claimed to have submitted evidence that was not considered by the FAA. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for one more opportunity. For the disallowance on advance payments, the assessee argued it was not claimed as expenditure. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO to examine if the expenditure was claimed as deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) was mandatory as per Section 151(ii). The approval obtained from the PCIT was invalid, vitiating the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the entire balance expenditure of Rs. 57,00,918 was excessive and arbitrary. While acknowledging that complete documentary substantiation was not produced and certain deficiencies in vouchers existed, the Tribunal found that a sworn statement recorded during survey proceedings cannot be the sole basis for an addition without independent corroborative material. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the admission was made under survey circumstances without full appreciation of legal consequences and in the backdrop of business disruption. It noted that the nature of expenditure often involves petty contractors and daily labour, where self-made vouchers are common. However, to meet the ends of justice, an element of estimation was warranted. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the total development expenditure, amounting to Rs. 5,71,000, and to allow the remaining 90% as deductible business expenditure under Section 37. The addition was thus confined to Rs. 5,71,000, and the balance addition of Rs. 51,22,918 was directed to be deleted. The ratio is that an admission during survey, while relevant, is not conclusive and can be rebutted; however, where substantiation is deficient, an estimated disallowance is appropriate.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained regular books of account, which were duly audited and accepted by the AO, and the cash balance prior to demonetization represented accumulation from regular sales, the subsequent deposits from this balance could not be treated as unexplained. The AO had not rejected the books of account or disputed the sales.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained provisional approval earlier but failed to file the application for final approval within the stipulated time. The CIT(E)'s rejection of the belated application was found justified due to the lack of evidence for condonation of delay and the absence of demonstrable charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed capital for the acquisition of properties, till the date of sale, forms an integral part of the cost of acquisition/improvement and allowed the claim of Rs.7,67,07,745/-. Regarding the payments made to farmers, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of genuineness, necessity, and nexus with the acquisition of properties.
The Tribunal noted the non-compliance by the assessee in the first appellate proceedings leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was allowed to raise all issues, including legal grounds.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 39,95,000/- deserved to be deleted. The Tribunal reasoned that it is an admitted fact that the assessee received cash advances aggregating to Rs. 37,00,000/-, and a substantial part of these advances was explained. Therefore, the possibility of utilizing these cash advances for subsequent bank deposits could not be ruled out. The Tribunal applied the principle of telescoping, stating that the cash deposits of Rs. 20,00,000/- did not represent an independent source but could be explained by the cash advances already received. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The remaining additions were sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file the applications within the extended due date and did not file a petition for condonation of delay. Despite being issued a show-cause notice, there was no proper response from the assessee. The reasons for rejection by the CIT(E) were found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the assessment unit of NFAC is bad in law and is quashed. The reasoning is based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in TVS Credit Services Limited v. DCIT, which held that an assessment made by the assessment unit of NFAC is not valid if the order and notice under Section 148A(d)/148 of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that liberty was given to the Revenue to re-ignite the notice if the Hon'ble Supreme Court interferes with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V. ACIT. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee regarding the assumption of jurisdiction was allowed. Other grounds raised under Form 36 were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the funds received by the assessee were in a fiduciary capacity as a stock broker and did not constitute its own income or turnover. The AO's reasons for reopening were found to be vague and lacked tangible material to believe income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's representative requested a remand to the CIT(A) for a further opportunity to present their case due to unavoidable circumstances. The Department opposed this.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing both parties and examining the affidavit for condonation. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case with submissions and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the land was rural agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed distance from municipal limits based on a Village Administrative Officer's certificate. Therefore, it was not a capital asset, and the capital gains were not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the Managing Director of the assessee company, aged about 68 years, was bedridden during the period from 10.10.2016 to 05.01.2017. This medical exigency constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report, as per Section 273B of the Act. The penalty provisions are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be mechanically invoked when a reasonable cause is demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 in terms of Rule 128 is directory in nature, not mandatory. The rule is for the implementation of the Act's provisions and is directory. Following previous judgments, including a High Court decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify and grant the FTC.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer denied TDS credit pertaining to an amalgamated entity. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the TDS credit.
The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned due to sufficient cause. The assessee submitted additional evidence, including financial statements and past turnover details, citing the death of a partner and disruption of business. The Tribunal found that this additional evidence required verification by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file the applications within the extended due date and did not file a petition for condonation of delay. Despite being issued a show-cause notice, there was no proper response from the assessee. The reasons for rejection by the CIT(E) were found to be justified.