Loading ITAT cases…
301 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal consolidated both appeals for a common order. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was not justified. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Sanjay Kumar Sharma, held that when a notice under Section 143(2) was issued prior to the intimation under Section 143(1), the CPC could not make such an adjustment. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's reliance on Circular No. 3/2017 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Electricity Board, which held that once regular assessment proceedings commence under Section 143(2), there is no need for summary proceedings under Section 143(1)(a). The disallowance was directed to be deleted, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal noted that the issue was similar. It held that no disallowance could be made under Section 154 without seeking an explanation from the assessee, as it was a debatable issue. Following the decision in Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted due to legal infirmity, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside. In both cases, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The Tribunal reasoned that the scope of enquiry at the registration stage is confined to the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities, and compliance with other laws. The CIT(E) cannot enlarge this enquiry to examine whether exemption conditions under Sections 11 to 13 are satisfied in a particular year. The Tribunal distinguished between registration (the gateway) and exemption (decided in assessment). Citing the Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, it was held that whether receipts from commercial activities exceed the statutory limit is a matter to be examined year-to-year, with the consequence affecting exemption for that year, not registration. The CIT(E) had not recorded any finding that the objects were not charitable or activities were not genuine, but rejected applications solely based on the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal also noted that the financial statements showed the incentive income and other receipts were applied entirely towards charitable objects, indicating no profit motive. Therefore, the activities were held to fall within the ambit of 'relief of the poor' under Section 2(15), and the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration and approval.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It noted that the CIT(E) rejected the renewal application based on the incorrect assertion that the earlier approval expired in AY 2024-25. The Tribunal observed that the regular approval granted on 21.03.2023 was, in fact, valid up to AY 2026-27, a fact not referred to in the impugned order. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the question of delay did not arise as the regular approval was still valid. Considering the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination of whether the approval granted on 21.03.2023 was indeed valid from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The Tribunal reasoned that the scope of enquiry at the registration stage is confined to the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities, and compliance with other laws. The CIT(E) cannot enlarge this enquiry to examine whether exemption conditions under Sections 11 to 13 are satisfied in a particular year. The Tribunal distinguished between registration (the gateway) and exemption (decided in assessment). Citing the Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, it was held that whether receipts from commercial activities exceed the statutory limit is a matter to be examined year-to-year, with the consequence affecting exemption for that year, not registration. The CIT(E) had not recorded any finding that the objects were not charitable or activities were not genuine, but rejected applications solely based on the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal also noted that the financial statements showed the incentive income and other receipts were applied entirely towards charitable objects, indicating no profit motive. Therefore, the activities were held to fall within the ambit of 'relief of the poor' under Section 2(15), and the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration and approval.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. Regarding the first two issues concerning the additions for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party "J-Pack" application software entries. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that erroneous entries might not pertain to it. Crucially, once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the "J-Pack" entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied any unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. In the absence of corroborative evidence beyond the "J-Pack" ledger, which the assessee did not accept in its entirety, it was unsafe to fasten liability. Therefore, the addition for AY 2018-19 was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal extended this reasoning to the other AYs, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits and directing the deletion of impugned additions for all assessment years. The legal issue raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left open, as a stay had been granted by the High Court in a similar case, and the appeal was pending.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. Regarding the first two issues concerning the additions for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party "J-Pack" application software entries. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that erroneous entries might not pertain to it. Crucially, once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the "J-Pack" entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied any unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. In the absence of corroborative evidence beyond the "J-Pack" ledger, which the assessee did not accept in its entirety, it was unsafe to fasten liability. Therefore, the addition for AY 2018-19 was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal extended this reasoning to the other AYs, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits and directing the deletion of impugned additions for all assessment years. The legal issue raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left open, as a stay had been granted by the High Court in a similar case, and the appeal was pending.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT, held that the increased tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE, amended to be effective from 01.04.2017, was not applicable to transactions prior to that date, including those during the demonetization period. The Court had observed that the amendment was intended for future transactions. Consequently, the tax liability on the addition of Rs. 1,02,08,500/- should be calculated at the erstwhile rate of 30%, resulting in a disputed tax liability of Rs. 30,62,550/-. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department. The Tribunal observed that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it failed to carve out an exception to the circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without any observation on the merits or law applicable, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition cannot be sustained. It found merit in the assessee's case regarding infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party software entries. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the 'J-Pack' entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal considered it unsafe to fasten the addition based solely on the third-party software entries without corroborative evidence, especially when the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. Consequently, the addition for AY 2017-18 was directed to be deleted. The same reasoning was applied to other assessment years, leading to the deletion of additions for all AYs. The legal issue regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left undecided as the High Court had stayed the operation of the relied-upon judgment in Hari Govind v. ACIT.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition cannot be sustained. It found merit in the assessee's case regarding infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party software entries. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the 'J-Pack' entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal considered it unsafe to fasten the addition based solely on the third-party software entries without corroborative evidence, especially when the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. Consequently, the addition for AY 2017-18 was directed to be deleted. The same reasoning was applied to other assessment years, leading to the deletion of additions for all AYs. The legal issue regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left undecided as the High Court had stayed the operation of the relied-upon judgment in Hari Govind v. ACIT.
The Tribunal observed that the explanations furnished by the assessee before the AO were not fully supported by relevant evidence. However, the assessee subsequently furnished documents like rental agreements, prior year returns, bank statements, and cash flow statements before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that these documents were not admitted or considered by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with the AO and that the first appellate authority should act as an AO as well, disposing of matters on a substantive basis by considering plausible explanations and evidence. Since the assessee had submitted evidence regarding rental income, advances from tenants, cash flow for opening balance, and sale of gold, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the matter in light of the adduced evidence after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and cooperative before the AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. Regarding the first two issues concerning the additions for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party "J-Pack" application software entries. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that erroneous entries might not pertain to it. Crucially, once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the "J-Pack" entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied any unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. In the absence of corroborative evidence beyond the "J-Pack" ledger, which the assessee did not accept in its entirety, it was unsafe to fasten liability. Therefore, the addition for AY 2018-19 was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal extended this reasoning to the other AYs, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits and directing the deletion of impugned additions for all assessment years. The legal issue raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left open, as a stay had been granted by the High Court in a similar case, and the appeal was pending.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated 05.04.2022, issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasoning was that the notice was issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year, and the approval for reopening was obtained from the PCIT, Coimbatore-1, instead of the Pr. CCIT, which is the competent authority in such cases. The Tribunal relied on its own order in the case of Thambiran Subbiah Subramanian v. ITO (ITA No. 1713/Chny/2026, dated 07.08.2026), which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Consequently, the reassessment made based on the invalid notice was quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that while the assessee's attitude in not filing a proper condonation petition was deprecable, the FAA erred by dismissing the appeals in limine without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice mandate that an assessee should be given a chance to explain the reasons for delay before an appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matters to the file of the FAA. The assessee was directed to file a proper petition for condonation of delay with supporting materials. The FAA is to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance with law. If the delay is condoned, the FAA shall decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the AO. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, noting its substantial bearing on the adjudication. The AO was directed to consider this evidence after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO and substantiate each entry in the bank statement with narration, fulfilling the requirements of Section 69A. The Tribunal did not comment on the legal and factual grounds raised by the assessee. The appeal was allowed subject to the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The ITAT held that while the assessee's attitude in not filing a proper condonation petition was deprecable, the FAA erred by dismissing the appeals in limine without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice mandate that an assessee should be given a chance to explain the reasons for delay before an appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matters to the file of the FAA. The assessee was directed to file a proper petition for condonation of delay with supporting materials. The FAA is to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance with law. If the delay is condoned, the FAA shall decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 87-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide. Regarding the additions under Sections 68 and 69, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before the AO or the CIT(A) to support the assessee's claims concerning share capital increase and time deposits. However, upon reviewing the additional evidence filed by the assessee (acknowledgments of income tax returns, bank statements, customer-wise statements of advances, and a communication regarding high-pitched scrutiny assessments), the Tribunal found this documentary evidence necessary for a fair adjudication of the disputed issues. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file further evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 135 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of a spinal injury and prolonged medical treatment, as well as his unfamiliarity with technology and faceless proceedings, finding no latches attributable to him. The Tribunal noted that both the AO's assessment and the FAA's order were ex-parte. While deprecating the assessee's "nonchalant attitude" in not responding to statutory notices, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was directed to cooperate with the Revenue, furnish all requisite details and evidence, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition cannot be sustained. It found merit in the assessee's case regarding infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party software entries. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the 'J-Pack' entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal considered it unsafe to fasten the addition based solely on the third-party software entries without corroborative evidence, especially when the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. Consequently, the addition for AY 2017-18 was directed to be deleted. The same reasoning was applied to other assessment years, leading to the deletion of additions for all AYs. The legal issue regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left undecided as the High Court had stayed the operation of the relied-upon judgment in Hari Govind v. ACIT.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee requires another opportunity before the CIT(A) to contest the issues on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case, having dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of chronic health issues, while not fully satisfying the CIT(A), warranted further consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence before the CIT(A), who was directed to consider it and pass an order in accordance with law. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing due to communication issues and medical ailments. The Tribunal acknowledged that proceedings before both the AO and FAA were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was in turn directed to cooperate with the Revenue, furnish all requisite details and evidence, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the FAA's order and remained unaware until contacted by the AO. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude in not responding to statutory notices, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month and producing proof of payment. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish all requisite details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. Regarding the first two issues concerning the additions for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party "J-Pack" application software entries. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that erroneous entries might not pertain to it. Crucially, once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the "J-Pack" entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied any unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. In the absence of corroborative evidence beyond the "J-Pack" ledger, which the assessee did not accept in its entirety, it was unsafe to fasten liability. Therefore, the addition for AY 2018-19 was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal extended this reasoning to the other AYs, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits and directing the deletion of impugned additions for all assessment years. The legal issue raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left open, as a stay had been granted by the High Court in a similar case, and the appeal was pending.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), Chennai for reconsideration. The reasoning was that while the Ld. CIT(E) relied on the financials to conclude that the assessee was primarily a mutual organization and not involved in charitable activities, the Tribunal, after reviewing the audited financials and the evidence submitted by the assessee, including photographs of charitable activities, found it necessary to re-examine the case. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the matter in light of the evidence furnished before the Tribunal and to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) by furnishing relevant explanations and evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only.
The Tribunal held that the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (VDCCB) is a 'Co-operative Society' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in "Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer" and "CIT v. Salem Agricultural Producers' Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.", the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 24,38,218/- on account of interest received from VDCCB under Section 80P(2)(d). Regarding the dividend income of Rs. 2,10,765/-, the Tribunal observed from the audited financial statements that the dividend was received on investments in shares of other Co-operative Societies and was duly reflected in the balance sheet and profit and loss account. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given an opportunity to provide a breakup of this income, and therefore, allowed the claim for deduction of Rs. 2,10,765/-. The AO was directed to allow both claims. The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the avoidable litigation created by the authorities below for not following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had assumed incorrect facts regarding the timing of the satisfaction note from the AO of M/s. Khajana Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The satisfaction note was recorded in April 2016, and the notice under Section 153C was issued to the assessee on February 21, 2018. This indicated that the notice was issued based on a valid satisfaction. The Tribunal stated that once the AO of the searched person records satisfaction about incriminating material relating to a third party and hands it over with the satisfaction note to the AO of the third party, the latter is justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. The Tribunal further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which held that if incriminating material is found, the AO can assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess total income, considering the unearthed material and other available information. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 132(4) from Mr. R.V. Raajah and Mr. Gajraj Jain, as well as the incriminating material found, which clearly indicated the receipt of on-money consideration by the assessee. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were reversed, and the assessment order of the AO was restored.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 was barred by limitation. It reasoned that the notice was issued on 29.07.2022, and the first proviso to section 149(1) requires the AO to have books of account or other documents/evidence revealing income likely to amount to Rs.50 lakhs or more for reassessment beyond three years. The Tribunal found that the AO possessed only information about purported income escaping assessment, not the requisite books or evidence, making the notice time-barred. This led to the conclusion that the foundation of the reassessment order had fallen, rendering the order void ab initio. The Tribunal also held that the notice u/s.148 dated 29.07.2022 was invalid for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No.19/2019. The notice was manually prepared without a DIN, and no valid reason or approval for issuing it without DIN was provided. Furthermore, the DIN generated was for AY 2013-14, not AY 2014-15, which was considered a nullity. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed. The original grounds and other additional grounds were left undecided as they became academic.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) extended cooperation to the assessee, but the assessee did not participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be frivolous and baseless. However, adhering to its consistent view of dealing with substantive orders for fair tax liability assessment, the Tribunal decided to give a final opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for reconsideration. The assessee was directed to represent the case before the AO with relevant evidence, substantiate arguments, and cooperate without seeking adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, with the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal being condoned. The operative direction is to restore the matter to the AO for fresh consideration after providing a proper opportunity of being heard as per Section 282.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee accepted Rs. 26,00,000/- in cash as advance, which contravened Section 269SS, the circumstances warranted consideration under Section 273B for reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the transaction was supported by a sale agreement, confirmed by both parties, and the AO's assessment records indicated the source of cash deposits appeared genuine, although not accepted due to demonetisation. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT v. Balaji Traders (Madras High Court) and Sreenivasan Ramya v. ACIT (ITAT Coordinate Bench), emphasizing that reasonable cause must be examined objectively based on the assessee's exigencies. The assessee demonstrated a bona fide financial exigency due to a substantial housing loan and efforts to sell the property. The Revenue failed to provide material to prove the transaction was fictitious or aimed at tax evasion. Therefore, the assessee established reasonable cause under Section 273B, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition cannot be sustained. It found merit in the assessee's case regarding infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party software entries. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the 'J-Pack' entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal considered it unsafe to fasten the addition based solely on the third-party software entries without corroborative evidence, especially when the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. Consequently, the addition for AY 2017-18 was directed to be deleted. The same reasoning was applied to other assessment years, leading to the deletion of additions for all AYs. The legal issue regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left undecided as the High Court had stayed the operation of the relied-upon judgment in Hari Govind v. ACIT.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed to be an agriculturist and not engaged in any business other than agriculture, but noted that no evidence was provided to substantiate these claims. Consequently, both the AO and the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-1 passed their orders ex-parte. Recognizing the ITAT as the final fact-finding authority and aiming for a fair assessment, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee a final opportunity to present his case before the AO with relevant evidence. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for reconsideration, with directions to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also instructed to be vigilant and cooperative without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition cannot be sustained. It found merit in the assessee's case regarding infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party software entries. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the 'J-Pack' entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal considered it unsafe to fasten the addition based solely on the third-party software entries without corroborative evidence, especially when the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. Consequently, the addition for AY 2017-18 was directed to be deleted. The same reasoning was applied to other assessment years, leading to the deletion of additions for all AYs. The legal issue regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left undecided as the High Court had stayed the operation of the relied-upon judgment in Hari Govind v. ACIT.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal observed that the issue regarding the Section 54F deduction had already been discussed, analyzed, and duly assessed by the AO in the original assessment under Section 143(3). The AO's subsequent action to re-examine the same transactions, which were already assessed after considering the assessee's documents, explanations, and evidence, amounted to a 'change of opinion'. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal found the AO's action to be in contravention of the law. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was quashed and declared null and void. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The ITAT held that while the assessee's attitude in not filing a proper condonation petition was deprecable, the FAA erred by dismissing the appeals in limine without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice mandate that an assessee should be given a chance to explain the reasons for delay before an appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matters to the file of the FAA. The assessee was directed to file a proper petition for condonation of delay with supporting materials. The FAA is to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance with law. If the delay is condoned, the FAA shall decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. Regarding the first two issues concerning the additions for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted infirmities and inconsistencies in the third-party "J-Pack" application software entries. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that erroneous entries might not pertain to it. Crucially, once the assessee denied unaccounted transactions and challenged the veracity of the "J-Pack" entries, the AO should have examined MJPL personnel and provided the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied any unaccounted transactions and MJPL had submitted confirmations of accounts. In the absence of corroborative evidence beyond the "J-Pack" ledger, which the assessee did not accept in its entirety, it was unsafe to fasten liability. Therefore, the addition for AY 2018-19 was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal extended this reasoning to the other AYs, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits and directing the deletion of impugned additions for all assessment years. The legal issue raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C was left open, as a stay had been granted by the High Court in a similar case, and the appeal was pending.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before the FAA. The Tribunal found that the reasons advanced by the assessee, namely the authorized representative being occupied with arrangements for his son's marriage, were sufficient in the interest of justice and fair play. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the FAA for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to extend full co-operation and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initially resided in Pollachi before shifting to Coimbatore. While the assessee had informed the department of the new address by filing a return for AY 2018-19 on 30.08.2018, the AO had issued notices to the old Pollachi address. Consequently, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings or respond to the notices. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be faulted for non-participation under these circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal was inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee by restoring the assessment to the file of the AO. As a condition for further compliance, the assessee was directed to remit Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, which was complied with. The assessee also undertook to appear, file written submissions, and produce documents to prove the nature and source of the credit card payment of Rs. 21,48,065/-. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment for de novo assessment by the AO, directing the assessee to file written submissions and produce documents, and the AO to frame a fresh assessment after hearing the assessee. The issue of the nature and source of the credit card payment was expressly left to be decided in the de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of providing global ranking support, institutional facilitation, and coordination services is in the nature of business activity and does not constitute a specified profession covered under Section 44AA(1). The Tribunal found that the agreements, invoices, and contractual obligations consistently reflected advisory engagement rather than routine operational contracts or specified professional services. The Tribunal noted that the exclusion in Section 44AD(6)(i) applies to persons carrying on a profession referred to in Section 44AA(1), and the assessee's activities did not fall within the professions contemplated by Section 44AA(1). Therefore, the invocation of Section 44ADA and the consequential estimation of income at 70% of gross receipts were unsustainable. The Tribunal directed that the income returned by the assessee under Section 44AD be accepted. Regarding TDS credit, the Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify Form 26AS and allow credit in accordance with law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the issue of whether the assessee's receipts were in the nature of commission or brokerage or if the assessee was carrying on an agency business, as the lower authorities' principal objection was that the services involved professional consultancy.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2020-21. While acknowledging the assessee's responsibility for vigilance, the Tribunal considered the severe ill health and subsequent demise of the Chartered Accountant, Shri S. Rajendran, as a significant factor. The Tribunal directed the assessee to remit Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, proof of which was taken on record. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed by the AO on 19.02.2025, making an addition of Rs. 5,52,85,267/- without hearing the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's status as a public charitable and religious trust and the administrative changes within its management. The Tribunal found it unacceptable that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the grounds on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity before the AO. Citing the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present relevant documents before the AO and expressed trust that the appointed chartered accountant would ensure necessary compliance. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 575 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), acknowledging the assessee's explanation of ill health and business difficulties, and the assessee's willingness to cooperate. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to examine the issues afresh, consider the explanations and supporting documentary evidence to be furnished by the assessee, and pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions, leaving all issues open for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully during the remand proceedings, and the AO was liberty to proceed in accordance with law in case of further non-compliance. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to an impermissible change of opinion. The Tribunal found that the issue of revaluation of stock/land and its tax treatment was specifically placed before the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny assessment, and the assessee had provided a specific explanation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kelvinator, the Tribunal stated that reopening is permissible only if there is tangible material giving rise to a reason to believe and not merely a change of opinion. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order did not contain an elaborate discussion on revaluation, but this did not permit reopening if the issue was considered and explained. The reliance on Explanation 1 to Section 147 by the CIT(A) was found misplaced as the assessee had not merely produced books but had specifically answered a query. The Tribunal concluded that the notice under Section 148 was issued on the basis of a mere change of opinion on an issue already examined, thus lacking valid jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The Tribunal did not conclusively adjudicate the ground regarding sanction under Section 151, as the appeal could be disposed of on the jurisdictional ground of change of opinion, and the sanction document was not placed on record. All other grounds challenging the addition and consequential issues were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) travelled beyond the permissible scope of Limited Scrutiny. The notified issue, "Deduction on Account of Donation for Scientific Research", could not be interpreted to encompass expenditure on an in-house R&D facility under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, as these are distinct transactions with different conditions. The Tribunal found no evidence that the AO received credible information regarding tax evasion from any authority or that the prescribed reasons were recorded and prior administrative approval of the Pr.CIT/CIT was obtained for taking up this additional issue. Sections 292B and 124(3)(a) were held inapplicable. The disallowance of Rs. 2,45,55,010/- made under Section 35(2AB) was therefore unsustainable in law. The CIT(A)'s finding was reversed, and the AO was directed to delete the disallowance. The issue regarding depreciation on capitalised R&D expenditure was restored to the AO by the CIT(A) and was not decided by the Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the AO had passed an ex-parte order. While acknowledging the assessee's registration under Section 12A and its administrative control by the Government of Tamil Nadu (HR & CE), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that a change in executive officers led to a lack of awareness regarding the income tax proceedings and the inability to upload requested details. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee, being a registered charitable trust with statutory audits, would not benefit from non-participation. Therefore, to facilitate the presentation of all relevant facts and explanations regarding the cash and time deposits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to file all relevant documents and written submissions without fail. The AO was instructed to pass an assessment order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the disallowance of deduction under Section 54F. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory contemporaneous evidence to establish the demolition of the old building and the construction of the new residential house within the claimed short period. The valuation report and housewarming invitation, along with bank withdrawals, were deemed insufficient corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on the findings from the Tirupur Municipal Corporation and the departmental Inspector's on-site enquiry, which indicated that the assessee owned seven residential houses on the date of transfer of the original asset. This ownership of more than one residential house, other than the new asset, attracted the restriction under the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the Act. The assessee's contention that these properties were mere sheds was not supported by evidence, as the enquiry confirmed their residential use and amenities. The Tribunal emphasized that the beneficial nature of Section 54F does not dispense with the requirement of establishing the statutory conditions through credible evidence. The disallowance of Rs. 1,17,83,441/- was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the provision of corporate guarantee to a foreign AE constitutes an international transaction. It relied on the amendment to Section 92B by the Finance Act, 2012, which clarifies guarantees as international transactions, and cited decisions of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. and the Madras High Court in Pr. CIT v. Redington (India) Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to the Hyderabad Tribunal's decision in Prolifics Corporation Limited, which acknowledged the inherent risk in providing guarantees. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the order passed by the DRP regarding the transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee. For the issue concerning Section 10AA deduction, the Tribunal, following its own precedents for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, set aside the AO's order and restored the issue to the AO's file. The AO was directed to re-adjudicate the matter by considering the Chartered Accountant's certificate in Form 56F, the bifurcated profit and loss statement, and the detailed computation of eligible profits, after providing an opportunity to the assessee. The disallowance of sales commission was not expressly decided upon in the provided text.
The Tribunal held that the reason provided by the Ld. CIT(E) for rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G was unsustainable. The assessee had submitted the required documents, including a trust deed, Form 10AC, prior 80G approval, and financial statements, vide a letter dated February 25, 2026, in response to the notice dated February 24, 2026. Evidence of this submission was found in the paper book. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E). The application was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the evidence filed by the assessee. If deemed necessary, the Ld. CIT(E) was further directed to call for other relevant documents and then decide on the grant of approval under Section 80G in accordance with the law after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to respond to statutory notices, strongly deprecating the nonchalant attitude. However, considering the submissions of the authorized representative and in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous since the appeal was disposed of. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application, filed on 28.09.2025, should be treated as having been filed under Clause (iv)(B) of the 1st Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. The reasoning was that Clause (iv) was inserted into the 1st Proviso to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, effective from 01.10.2024, allowing applications to be filed at any time after the commencement of activities. The CIT(E) had passed the order rejecting the application on 28.03.2026, after this amendment came into force. The Tribunal noted that this provision is distinct from the earlier timeline governed by Clause (iii). The CIT(E) was directed to treat the application as filed under the new clause and decide in accordance with the law after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act for disallowing the employees' contribution to PF/ESI on account of delayed remittance was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal noted that the issue was debatable at the relevant time, especially before the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Service (P) Ltd.*, and therefore, could not be a subject matter of adjustment under Section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras in *CIT vs. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt Ltd*, which held that remittances made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) were allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal also referred to its own decisions in *M/s. SRC Projects Pvt Ltd* and *Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd*, which followed the ratio of the Chhattisgarh High Court in *Raj Kumar Bothra*. The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting decisions but applied the principle that where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favouring the assessee should be adopted, citing *CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd*. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO/CPC to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 55,30,492/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause due to his father's medical condition and the provided medical records. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and that the impugned issues (quantum additions and penalties) had not been examined on merits by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present the case on merits. The appeals were remitted back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issues concerning both quantum additions and penalties for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to cooperate and submit required details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.