ITAT Cochin Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, reassessment was valid as it was within four years. For AY 2009-10, the assessee's failure to disclose Form 3CL, which showed a lower deduction than claimed, was a non-disclosure of a material fact, making reassessment valid.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, reassessment was valid as it was within four years. For AY 2009-10, the assessee's failure to disclose Form 3CL, which showed a lower deduction than claimed, was a non-disclosure of a material fact, making reassessment valid.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and condoned it. The Tribunal also decided that the annual value of the 7th floor, which was not let, should be computed under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, while the let floors would be computed under Section 23(1)(a) read with Sections 23(1)(b)/(c).

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and convincing. The ex parte order was set aside as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, by its conduct and operations, acted like a bank and its transactions with members were in the normal course of business. It found a reasonable cause for the violation of Sections 269SS and 269T, thus exempting the assessee from penalty under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, by its conduct and operations, acted like a bank and its transactions with members were in the normal course of business. It found a reasonable cause for the violation of Sections 269SS and 269T, thus exempting the assessee from penalty under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument regarding the applicability of Section 68 vs. Section 69 was irrelevant as no books of account were found or produced during the search. The reliance on the Abhishar Buildwell decision was misplaced for Section 153C assessments. The interest claim by the Revenue was also found to be without merit.

The provided judgment extract only describes the background of the appeals, stating that the assessees are challenging the confirmation of penalty under Section 271B by the CIT(A). The actual decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on these appeals is not included in this excerpt.

The provided judgment extract only describes the background of the appeals, stating that the assessees are challenging the confirmation of penalty under Section 271B by the CIT(A). The actual decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on these appeals is not included in this excerpt.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report. It further clarified that furnishing both audit reports, where required, is mandatory for compliance with Section 44AB, and late filing does not constitute sufficient compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument regarding the applicability of Section 68 vs. Section 69 was irrelevant as no books of account were found or produced during the search. The reliance on the Abhishar Buildwell decision was misplaced for Section 153C assessments. The interest claim by the Revenue was also found to be without merit.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice did not specify the limb of Section 270A(9) under which misreporting was alleged, but the assessment order did. However, the assessee was denied an opportunity to seek immunity under Section 270AA due to the change in classification of the issue at the appellate stage.