Loading ITAT cases…
391 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had made out a sufficient cause. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order due to the absence of submissions before the AO. The Tribunal, accepting the assessee's prayer and in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the file of the AO. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claim. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was not justified. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) had not made any discussion regarding the assessee's submissions but simply relied on the Supreme Court decision in New Noble Educational Society to reject the application. The Tribunal found this approach to be unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission and remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh examination. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for registration but rather on the procedural deficiency in the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission for a remand. It noted that the absence of verifiable daily cash books, reliable sequential patient registers, and proper legal segregation of entity funds was evident from paragraph 7 of the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes. The matter was remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with the undertaking that the assessee would represent its case without fail and would be at liberty to file any supporting evidence. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act solely on the ground that the assessee's name contained the expression 'religious'. The Tribunal noted that it has consistently held that the expression 'religious' in the name of a trust does not automatically absolve it from seeking registration under Section 80G(5). Crucially, the CIT(E) failed to examine the objects of the trust, which is a necessary step in determining the approval under Section 80G(5). The reasoning of the CIT(E) in paragraph 4.3 of the impugned order was found to be unjustified. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application for registration under Section 80G(5) after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to the assessee's case. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A), and the lower authorities had not examined the impugned issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the impugned issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to submit the necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act were invalid. The Tribunal found that the reassessment order was passed without proper reasons and justification, and the procedure prescribed by law was not followed. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law and a nullity. Regarding the additions under Section 69A, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had placed on record the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the sums received as a Power of Attorney holder and had substantiated the fact of payment as an advance for property purchase. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee had provided cogent explanations and documentary evidence for the cash deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the presumption of unexplained money under Section 69A was unjustified and not sustainable. The Tribunal also observed that the applicability of Section 115BBE was a matter of dispute, with the assessee relying on Madras High Court pronouncements. The Tribunal found that the NFAC failed to independently examine the nature and source of the sums received/deposited. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment order was contrary to law and facts. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E), while rejecting the application for want of full and complete details, had neither identified the specific documents or particulars that were deficient nor called upon the assessee to furnish any further clarification. In the absence of such specific identification, the rejection based on a general observation of non-furnishing of complete details could not be sustained. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the application afresh after considering all submissions and evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and the reliance on the tax consultant. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Observing that the lower authorities had not examined the impugned issues on merits, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay, call for necessary details, and decide the issue on merits in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to submit the necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable and sufficient cause based on the assessee's affidavit and the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471). The Tribunal also granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent the case properly before the lower authorities in the interest of natural justice and fair play. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to submit the required details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable and sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471). The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case properly. The impugned issues were remitted back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to submit required details and cooperate with the proceedings. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on the assessee for the time and effort spent by the Exchequer and for the assessee's delinquency before the lower authorities, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) (SC). Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. The Tribunal also found that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Considering that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and the lower authorities had not examined the issues on merits, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, the impugned issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to submit necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in Shri Sekar Gnanprakasam vs DCIT had considered an identical issue and held the amount to be exempt. The Tribunal also found that the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was formulated pursuant to a Government-approved revival package and funded by Government budgetary support, and that it partakes the character of a Government-approved retrenchment compensation scheme. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal held that the decision in Goetze India Ltd. (supra) is confined to the powers of the AO and does not restrict appellate authorities from entertaining a claim not made in the original return. The Tribunal found that the relevant facts were on record and the CIT(A) was incorrect in rejecting the claim on that ground. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee and grant consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prohibit distribution of dividends and mandate that remaining assets upon winding up be transferred to another Section 8 company with similar objects, clearly negate the Assessing Officer's stand that the assessee is a mutual benefit association. Therefore, the reasoning of the learned CIT(Exemption) on this point cannot be sustained. Regarding the contention that the assessee is engaged in commercial activity by rendering services to members in business, the Tribunal noted that at the time of granting registration under Section 12AB, the CIT(E) can only look into the objects of the trust, not the assessment issues. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT, which held that the term 'activities' in Section 12AA (and by extension, Section 12AB) includes 'proposed activities', meaning the Commissioner must consider whether the objects are genuinely charitable and the proposed activities align with them. The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for de novo disposal of the application for registration under Section 12AB, after due verification of the material on record regarding the charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of its activities. Consequently, the appeal concerning Section 80G approval was also restored to the CIT(E)'s file for de novo disposal. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal in the quantum assessment had been set aside by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in ITA No.363 & 364/Chny/2026 dated 20.03.2026, and the matter was restored for de novo consideration before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty order under consideration also needs to be decided along with the quantum proceedings. In view of these facts, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the grounds raised but allowed the appeal based on the procedural aspect of the quantum appeal being restored. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the restoration of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence, including the Tax Audit Report, financial statements, and various supporting documents, had a direct bearing on the determination of the trading results. The reasoning was that the assessee's explanation for not producing these documents earlier, citing the incapacitation and subsequent death of its Chartered Accountant, was accepted in the interest of justice and equity. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the admitted evidence and for deciding the issue afresh, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the impugned cash credit of Rs.11,31,05,600/-. The burden was on the assessee to establish that the cash deposits were genuine business receipts from identifiable transactions. Despite being provided with opportunities, including during remand proceedings, the assessee did not furnish satisfactory particulars of purchasers for disputed cash sales, nor did it produce purchase invoices during remand proceedings to verify stock availability, stating they were furnished earlier. The Tribunal found no material to displace the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that the explanation remained unsubstantiated, especially considering the substantial and unusual cash accumulation, absence of purchaser particulars, and lack of corroborative material for stock movement. Regarding the non-furnishing of annexures, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had taken up the issue with the AO, and the assessee was offered scanning facilities but did not complete the process. Crucially, the Tribunal itself granted a specific opportunity during remand proceedings, which the assessee utilized, but the outcome did not support its claim. The contention regarding disposal for non-prosecution was dismissed as the CIT(A) had considered the merits, including written submissions and specific findings on cash deposits and sales. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prohibit distribution of dividends and mandate that remaining assets upon winding up be transferred to another Section 8 company with similar objects, clearly negate the Assessing Officer's stand that the assessee is a mutual benefit association. Therefore, the reasoning of the learned CIT(Exemption) on this point cannot be sustained. Regarding the contention that the assessee is engaged in commercial activity by rendering services to members in business, the Tribunal noted that at the time of granting registration under Section 12AB, the CIT(E) can only look into the objects of the trust, not the assessment issues. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT, which held that the term 'activities' in Section 12AA (and by extension, Section 12AB) includes 'proposed activities', meaning the Commissioner must consider whether the objects are genuinely charitable and the proposed activities align with them. The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for de novo disposal of the application for registration under Section 12AB, after due verification of the material on record regarding the charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of its activities. Consequently, the appeal concerning Section 80G approval was also restored to the CIT(E)'s file for de novo disposal. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that a remand report was eventually called for and considered. The AO confirmed the enquiry under Section 133(6) and Shri Anjay Jain's denial of the transaction with the assessee. The AO also confirmed that the additional evidence before the CIT(A) comprised delivery challans, invoices, and the job work register. The Tribunal found that the AO's objections to these documents in the remand report lacked merit, with several points being demonstrably contrary to the record or based on a misapplication of mind. For instance, the claim of no other job work receipts was contradicted by the record showing receipts from over thirty jewellers. The Tribunal found that the delivery of finished ornaments was evidenced by documents and confirmed by the counter-party. On the second issue, the Tribunal implicitly agreed with the CIT(A) that the retracted statement was not conclusive, especially when contradicted by subsequent evidence and the counter-party's clarification. The Tribunal found that the ledger accounts, job work register, and bank receipts supported the assessee's claim of job work. Regarding the third issue, the Tribunal noted that the absence of TDS deduction by M/s. Mahavir Jewellers was addressed, and the primary evidence supported the job work nature of the transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was unwarranted for want of corroborative evidence and upheld the deletion of Rs. 9,65,61,992/-. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous because the appeal was allowed on merits.
The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of ₹10,000/-.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the delay condonation petition primarily due to a lack of supporting medical evidence. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
For AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on the specific profit offered by the assessee or any alternative arguments by the Revenue for these years. However, it is implied that the appeals related to these years were heard alongside AY 2022-23, and the consolidated order suggests a common thread. The Tribunal's detailed reasoning focuses on AY 2022-23. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,91,57,963/- made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly appreciated the seized Tally data, reconciliation of turnover, GST disclosures, and other material, concluding that the disputed sales were already included in the disclosed turnover. The AO's addition was based on aggregating disclosed turnover and a component from seized data without establishing distinct transactions, leading to duplication. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's principal contention for restoration of the addition and its alternative prayer for estimation of profit, finding that the Revenue failed to establish that the disputed sales represented turnover outside the disclosed accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and that the alternative plea for estimation could not overcome the failure to establish unaccounted sales. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal noted the death of the assessee's husband shortly after the assessment order and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation and hear the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 349 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on why the assessee's explanation for the delay did not constitute a reasonable cause. The averments made in the assessee's affidavit, stating ignorance of the assessment order and proceedings due to non-receipt of notices, remained uncontroverted. Citing the principle from M. Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V. Laxmi Narain Rao, the Tribunal concluded that the uncontroverted affidavit should be taken as fact. Therefore, the Tribunal was convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause. While ordinarily the matter would be remitted to the CIT(A), given the ex-parte assessment order due to alleged ignorance of proceedings, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The issue regarding the validity of the addition under section 68 was not explicitly decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the grant of registration solely because the assessee's response to the show-cause notice was found to be in an unreadable/invalid format. The Tribunal observed that when the information provided by the assessee is inaccessible, it is incumbent upon the CIT(Exemption) to offer an opportunity to the assessee to submit a fresh reply to the show-cause notice. Since the CIT(Exemption) failed to provide such an opportunity, the Tribunal considered it necessary to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo disposal of the application. This would be done in accordance with the law after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide on the charitable nature of the assessee's objects or the genuineness of its activities.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in denying registration under Section 12AB solely based on the plotted sale of the Tirupur property. The Tribunal noted that the sale of the land was undertaken after obtaining approval from the Principal District Judge and a resolution passed by the trustees. The object behind the alienation was to monetize an idle asset for the trust's charitable objects. The Tribunal referred to Board Instruction No. 883 dated 24.09.1975, which considers investment of net sale consideration in fixed deposits as utilization for charitable purposes. It also cited High Court decisions in *CIT v. Hindustan Welfare Trusts*, *CIT v. East India Charitable Trust*, and *CIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Trust No.3* supporting this view. Crucially, the Tribunal emphasized that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB, the Commissioner should primarily examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of proposed activities, not conduct a full assessment of taxability. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in *Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT*, the Tribunal stated that the registration stage is for examining whether the objects are charitable and activities are genuine, not for assessing actual past activities contrary to objects or taxability. The order of the Learned CIT(Exemption) was set aside and restored to the file of the Learned CIT(Exemption) for de novo disposal, to grant registration under Section 12AB after due verification of the charitable nature of objects and genuineness of activities, and absence of specified violations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, noting the assessee's explanation of ill-health and the fact that the substantive issues were not adjudicated on merits by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to examine the assessee's claims regarding the peculiar features, defects, and encumbrances of the property, and the consequent objection to the stamp duty value. The AO shall also consider the assessee's request for determination of the fair market value through the DVO, if statutory conditions are met. The assessee is directed to cooperate and furnish all relevant documents. The AO shall decide the issues afresh on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order. The issue regarding the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- under Section 69A was not expressly decided as the matter was remitted to the AO.
For AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on the specific profit offered by the assessee or any alternative arguments by the Revenue for these years. However, it is implied that the appeals related to these years were heard alongside AY 2022-23, and the consolidated order suggests a common thread. The Tribunal's detailed reasoning focuses on AY 2022-23. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,91,57,963/- made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly appreciated the seized Tally data, reconciliation of turnover, GST disclosures, and other material, concluding that the disputed sales were already included in the disclosed turnover. The AO's addition was based on aggregating disclosed turnover and a component from seized data without establishing distinct transactions, leading to duplication. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's principal contention for restoration of the addition and its alternative prayer for estimation of profit, finding that the Revenue failed to establish that the disputed sales represented turnover outside the disclosed accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and that the alternative plea for estimation could not overcome the failure to establish unaccounted sales. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal condoned the 67-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's illness. Regarding the reassessment proceedings and the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) confirmed it due to the assessee's non-participation. The assessee raised legal grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, which go to the root of the matter and require examination of facts not fully available to the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, consider all legal and factual grounds, including the validity of reassessment, and pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and furnish all required details promptly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds stated in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had substantially focused on the share transaction and used it as the principal basis to infer the overall character of the trust. The Tribunal opined that an isolated transaction, even if requiring examination for taxability, cannot automatically determine the charitable character of the institution or establish that its entire activities are non-genuine. The concept of 'genuineness of activities' cannot be expanded to mean that every transaction must be shown to have been undertaken directly for immediate utilization towards charitable objects. The Tribunal noted that the documentary material demonstrated the existence of the trust, its charitable objects, the receipt and sale of shares through banking channels, and investment of funds in fixed deposits. The CIT(E) had not established that the trust was fictitious, shares were not transferred, the sale did not occur, or that the sale consideration was siphoned off. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) travelled beyond the permissible scope of examination under Section 12AB by treating registration proceedings as an occasion to adjudicate tax consequences and alleged anti-avoidance implications of a particular transaction. Issues relating to valuation, taxability of capital gains, applicability of Section 11(1A), compliance with Section 11(5), source and character of contributions, and any allegation of tax avoidance could be examined in appropriate proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had not recorded any specific finding that the objects of the assessee were not charitable, nor demonstrated any clause in the trust deed permitting application of income or assets for non-charitable purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed the grant of registration under Section 12AB. Regarding Section 80G approval, the Tribunal held that the consequential rejection could not survive independently and directed the CIT(E) to grant/reconsider the approval. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were confined to registration under Section 12AB and did not express any opinion on the ultimate taxability of capital gains or other issues arising in assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds stated in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had substantially focused on the share transaction and used it as the principal basis to infer the overall character of the trust. The Tribunal opined that an isolated transaction, even if requiring examination for taxability, cannot automatically determine the charitable character of the institution or establish that its entire activities are non-genuine. The concept of 'genuineness of activities' cannot be expanded to mean that every transaction must be shown to have been undertaken directly for immediate utilization towards charitable objects. The Tribunal noted that the documentary material demonstrated the existence of the trust, its charitable objects, the receipt and sale of shares through banking channels, and investment of funds in fixed deposits. The CIT(E) had not established that the trust was fictitious, shares were not transferred, the sale did not occur, or that the sale consideration was siphoned off. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) travelled beyond the permissible scope of examination under Section 12AB by treating registration proceedings as an occasion to adjudicate tax consequences and alleged anti-avoidance implications of a particular transaction. Issues relating to valuation, taxability of capital gains, applicability of Section 11(1A), compliance with Section 11(5), source and character of contributions, and any allegation of tax avoidance could be examined in appropriate proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had not recorded any specific finding that the objects of the assessee were not charitable, nor demonstrated any clause in the trust deed permitting application of income or assets for non-charitable purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed the grant of registration under Section 12AB. Regarding Section 80G approval, the Tribunal held that the consequential rejection could not survive independently and directed the CIT(E) to grant/reconsider the approval. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were confined to registration under Section 12AB and did not express any opinion on the ultimate taxability of capital gains or other issues arising in assessment proceedings.
The tribunal noted the consistent absence of the assessee and their representative despite numerous opportunities. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
For AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on the specific profit offered by the assessee or any alternative arguments by the Revenue for these years. However, it is implied that the appeals related to these years were heard alongside AY 2022-23, and the consolidated order suggests a common thread. The Tribunal's detailed reasoning focuses on AY 2022-23. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,91,57,963/- made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly appreciated the seized Tally data, reconciliation of turnover, GST disclosures, and other material, concluding that the disputed sales were already included in the disclosed turnover. The AO's addition was based on aggregating disclosed turnover and a component from seized data without establishing distinct transactions, leading to duplication. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's principal contention for restoration of the addition and its alternative prayer for estimation of profit, finding that the Revenue failed to establish that the disputed sales represented turnover outside the disclosed accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and that the alternative plea for estimation could not overcome the failure to establish unaccounted sales. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23.
For AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on the specific profit offered by the assessee or any alternative arguments by the Revenue for these years. However, it is implied that the appeals related to these years were heard alongside AY 2022-23, and the consolidated order suggests a common thread. The Tribunal's detailed reasoning focuses on AY 2022-23. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,91,57,963/- made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly appreciated the seized Tally data, reconciliation of turnover, GST disclosures, and other material, concluding that the disputed sales were already included in the disclosed turnover. The AO's addition was based on aggregating disclosed turnover and a component from seized data without establishing distinct transactions, leading to duplication. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's principal contention for restoration of the addition and its alternative prayer for estimation of profit, finding that the Revenue failed to establish that the disputed sales represented turnover outside the disclosed accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and that the alternative plea for estimation could not overcome the failure to establish unaccounted sales. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order denying the Section 80P claim, as the assessee had not filed a return of income under Section 139(1) and made no submissions. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the lack of a proper delay condonation petition and the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal based on the available records and the arguments of the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, with the assessee ready to furnish all details.
The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance by the assessee but, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessee was directed to represent its case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal noted the consistent non-compliance by the assessee at all levels of assessment and appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
The tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to represent its case and file evidence before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple hearing notices, the assessee or their representative did not appear on most occasions, except for two when the bench was not working. On the final hearing date, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal, having gone through the orders of the authorities below and the directions of the DRP, found them to be tenable. Since the assessee did not appear to differentiate the DRP's order, the same was confirmed. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the orders of the authorities below were confirmed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's non-compliance before the lower appellate authority, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to file relevant material and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as the Assessing Officer failed to strike down the relevant charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following the Madras High Court's decision in Babuji Jacob v. ITO, the penalty notices were quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the diary entries and statements had some evidentiary value, they were not fully corroborated and the assessees had provided substantial documentary evidence. Therefore, a 5% disallowance was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee mistakenly omitted to disclose income from other sources in the relevant columns of the return, but had discharged the tax liability. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden under Section 68 by providing donor confirmations, gift deeds, and income tax returns. The Revenue failed to provide independent material to disprove the genuineness of the gifts or establish that the amounts belonged to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and that a day-to-day explanation was required. The affidavit seeking condonation of delay was dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was given liberty to file supporting evidence.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G due to non-submission of mandatory documents. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while some doubt remained regarding the genuineness of expenses due to ambiguous diary entries and lack of corroboration, a complete disallowance was not justified. A 5% disallowance was sustained.