Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal, as the Senior Departmental Representative did not object and the contents of the assessee's petition for condonation were not found to be false. The Tribunal noted that the order of the learned JCIT(A) was ex parte because the assessee failed to produce details and documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the learned JCIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard. The principle is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to be heard are paramount, especially when an ex parte order has been passed due to non-production of documents, and the assessee seeks a chance to rectify the oversight.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision was based on the observation that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte, and the assessee had failed to produce necessary details and documents before the lower appellate authority, nor had it properly represented its case. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an ex parte order passed due to the assessee's failure to appear or produce documents should be set aside and restored to the original authority for a fresh hearing, provided there is a reasonable cause for the failure and the assessee is willing to present its case. The operative direction is to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,11,69,337/- as unexplained cash credit was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of account were not rejected and the cash book clearly showed a cash balance of Rs. 1,38,51,454/- as on November 8, 2016. Since the assessee had this cash balance, they were entitled to deposit it in the bank. The Tribunal observed that the cash balance had been regularly increasing due to sales, not appearing suddenly. Therefore, the addition on this issue was deleted. Regarding the Rs. 19,50,000/- commission income, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed this income in its return and specified it as commission income. As no other sources were found by the AO, it could not be treated as undisclosed income. Consequently, the levy of tax under Section 115BBE on this amount was also deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's books of account were rejected, the turnover as per the books was accepted by the AO. Given this, and the fact that purchases were accepted, the Tribunal found no justification for estimating the GP at a higher rate, as the AO had not provided reasons or comparable cases for such an estimation. Consequently, instead of estimating GP, the Tribunal directed that the net profit (NP) be estimated. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the net profit at 1.3% for all the years under appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee was within 2.5%, and an agreement between petroleum dealers and companies supports this. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's submission for a 2% NP. As the books were rejected, other additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) relying on those books were directed to be deleted, except for the estimation of profit. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposited could not be treated as unexplained cash credit, especially once the books of account were rejected, and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. The assessee's representative stated that the assessee possesses the registration under Section 12A of the Act. In light of this submission, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity to produce all necessary evidence to support its case. The principle here is that if a factual assertion is made by the assessee and the revenue suggests a procedural restoration for verification, the Tribunal may allow such a course to ensure proper adjudication. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's books of account were rejected, the turnover as per the books was accepted by the AO. Given this, and the fact that purchases were accepted, the Tribunal found no justification for estimating the GP at a higher rate, as the AO had not provided reasons or comparable cases for such an estimation. Consequently, instead of estimating GP, the Tribunal directed that the net profit (NP) be estimated. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the net profit at 1.3% for all the years under appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee was within 2.5%, and an agreement between petroleum dealers and companies supports this. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's submission for a 2% NP. As the books were rejected, other additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) relying on those books were directed to be deleted, except for the estimation of profit. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposited could not be treated as unexplained cash credit, especially once the books of account were rejected, and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee regarding the premium on the lease of land/shed. It noted that the Pr. CIT had previously considered this issue under Section 263 and accepted the assessee's claim that the premium is a capital receipt, as IDCO is not the owner of the plots and the ownership remains with the state government. Since the revenue did not demonstrate any change in facts from Assessment Year 2015-16 to the impugned Assessment Year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition, following the Pr. CIT's decision. Regarding CSR expenses, the Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case for Assessment Year 2015-16. The coordinate bench had held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) is not applicable to the assessee as it is a corporation established by the state government as a trust and not registered under the Companies Act. However, as no details of the CSR expenses were filed before the lower authorities, the issue was set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination afresh, with sufficient opportunity to be given to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee had an opening cash balance of Rs. 6,03,700/- as on March 31, 2016, and that the cash deposited during demonetization was not in SBN notes. However, it was observed that the assessee failed to provide full details before the lower authorities, leading the CIT(A) to confirm the addition without considering the assessee's submissions due to the lack of complete documentation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to produce all necessary details and documents. Consequently, the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment order was ex parte. Therefore, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the MAT credit claim itself but rather on the procedural defect of the ex parte orders. The ratio decidendi is that ex parte orders, especially where substantial benefits like MAT credit are denied without proper hearing, should be set aside and restored for proper adjudication. The operative direction was to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the difference between the cash as per the cash book and the physical cash found during the survey. The assessee had produced the updated cash book before the Assessing Officer, and the AO had not pointed out any errors in it. The Tribunal noted that Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure, which arises from unexplained cash whose source is not disclosed. In this case, the cash balance was recorded in the books, and therefore, any expenditure could not be considered unexplained expenditure. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted on both grounds.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal of the assessee was still pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication, the present penalty appeal, which arises out of the said quantum appeal, should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that it is appropriate to have the penalty appeal heard and decided along with the main quantum appeal to ensure a comprehensive and consistent decision. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive adjudication would now take place at the CIT(A) level. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal's decision was procedural, leading to the restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. It noted that the quantum appeal of the assessee was pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal held that this penalty appeal, which arose out of the said quantum appeal, should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to hear this appeal along with the pending quantum appeal (appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10127089) after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was condoned, as the reasons provided in the affidavit were not found to be false and the Revenue did not object. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. The assessee's AR prayed for the matter to be restored to the AO. Considering that details were not furnished before the AO, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify whether the transaction is liable for capital gains and to examine the levy of capital gains tax, accordingly computing the capital gains. The assessee is directed to furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The ratio of this decision is that where assessment and appellate orders are passed ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the assessee expresses readiness to furnish details, the matter can be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the application for registration was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) due to the mention of a wrong section code. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to make the necessary correction by mentioning the correct code in Form No. 10A and to provide the details before the CIT(Exemption). The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects, such as incorrect section codes in application forms, should not lead to outright rejection without providing an opportunity for correction, especially when the error is bona fide and does not prejudice the revenue. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal pronounced its order on 07/10/2026. The operative part of the order states that 'the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.' No specific findings on any issues, reasoning, or ratio decidendi are provided in the judgment. The extent of the 'partly allowed' relief or the specific grounds on which it was granted are not detailed. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. It noted that Section 148A(a) requires prior approval from a specified authority if an enquiry is deemed necessary. The Assessing Officer's notings indicated information from the 'Insight portal' was available, and an enquiry was partly conducted. However, the necessary prior approval from the JCIT or Pr.CIT for conducting this enquiry was not obtained. Furthermore, the movement of files between Berhampur and Bhubaneswar on a single day, as recorded, appeared to be solely through computer clicks without physical verification of documents. The remarks of the JCIT did not adequately discuss the reasons for escaping assessment, merely referring to online notices and 'addressee left' remarks. Crucially, the approval granted by the PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar on 30.03.2024, lacked a signature in the order sheet, and the form under Section 151 for approval was not produced. Citing Section 282A(2) regarding authentication and the Delhi High Court's decision in ITO v. M/s Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court), the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of requisite approval and proper authentication, the reopening was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The additional grounds were allowed, and the consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The notice dated March 23, 2023, with a compliance date of March 30, 2023, did not provide the statutory minimum of seven clear days for the assessee to respond. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the coordinate bench in *Imran Ahmad* (supra), which in turn relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in *Satish Kumar* (supra). The High Court's decision stipulated that a minimum of seven clear days, excluding the date of issuance and the date of response, must be provided. As this was not met, the notice under Section 148A(b) was quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, which was based on the invalid notice, was also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the assessment order, noting that the assessee had not produced all the required evidence before the AO to substantiate its claims. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted substantial relief based on evidence produced during remand proceedings. However, for the balance additions sustained, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore both issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submission regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) and the receipt from HUF was that the matter be restored for readjudication due to non-production of all evidence. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's claim regarding internal branch transfers and gold found, and the argument that CBDT Circular No. 1916 was not considered. The operative direction was to restore these issues to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in the interest of justice, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details before the Assessing Officer during the set-aside proceedings. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment and appellate proceedings, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Odisha, Cuttack within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1372 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that the assessee had explained the reason for the delay. In the interest of justice, the issues in the quantum appeal (ITA No. 900/2026) were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the case on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 899/2026) was also restored to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits. The Tribunal did not decide any specific addition or penalty on merits, as the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, dated March 31, 2021, issued for Assessment Year 2015-16, is invalid and quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. and ITO vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti. In Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., the Supreme Court noted a concession by the revenue that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the prescribed period under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice in this case was dated March 31, 2021, which falls within this period. The Tribunal found further support in Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, where the Supreme Court reiterated that for AY 2015-16, notices issued for reassessment would be barred by time in light of the view taken in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. The ratio is that notices issued for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are invalid due to time limitations as per Supreme Court pronouncements. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 763 days in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient reasons in an affidavit and the revenue did not object. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 11,66,891/- had not been examined by the AO. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the said FDs related to the impugned assessment year (2013-2014) or were carry-forward FDs from earlier years. The reasoning was based on the fact that the crucial evidence (bank certificate) was not examined by the AO. The Tribunal directed that if the FDs are found to be carry-forwarded, no addition shall be made in the hands of the assessee, other than the interest that accrued during the impugned assessment year. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes with these directions.
The Tribunal held that the consequential order to the order passed under Section 263 had already been passed and was in the second round of litigation. It noted that the AO had considered the submissions before it in the consequential order, and issues relating to assessment year 2015-2016 had not been considered. Given that the consequential assessment order was ex-parte and the matter was pending before the AO, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263. Regarding the assessee's argument that issues in paragraph 3 could have been rectified under Section 154, the Tribunal reasoned that the existence of a provision for rectification under Section 154 does not preclude the Pr.CIT from invoking powers under Section 263 if an error is pointed out. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. It noted that the partnership firm had responded to the AO's notice and provided requested details. The Tribunal held that the fact that commission was not paid in earlier years does not preclude the assessee from paying it in the impugned assessment year. While an assessee can adjust its affairs to reduce tax liability, it cannot evade tax or engage in transactions where the other party has not performed any activity. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not examined whether the partnership firm had offered the income, claimed the benefit of TDS, or whether an assessment had been done in the firm's case. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after a thorough examination and providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. The dispute revolved around the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had prepared a detailed analysis of the delayed deposits, and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this issue has been settled by the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (Pvt.) Limited vs Pr.CIT-1 (Supra). Accordingly, respectfully following the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. No weight was found in the submissions made by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This decision was based on the fact that the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned JCIT(A) were ex parte and the assessee had failed to file details properly. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details before the Assessing Officer during the set-aside proceedings. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment and appellate proceedings, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Odisha, Cuttack, within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost would result in the confirmation of the learned CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be deemed to have registration under Section 12A of the Act for the impugned assessment year, AY 2013-2014. The reasoning was based on the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, which allows for the benefit of registration in preceding assessment years if registration is granted in a subsequent year, assessment proceedings are pending, and the objects and activities of the trust remain the same. The Tribunal also referred to a third proviso introduced w.e.f. April 1, 2021, which supports the principle that reopening should not be done solely for non-registration. Since the assessment for AY 2013-2014 was completed after the assessee was granted registration for AY 2014-2015, and in view of the second and third provisos to Section 12A(2), the AO was directed to treat the assessee as having registration for AY 2013-2014 and to re-adjudicate the issue. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in the hands of the assessee in her individual capacity. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repeatedly informed the AO and the CIT(A) that the transaction was undertaken by M/s OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A perusal of the sale deed confirmed that the transaction was between the company and Shri Amulya Kumar Padhi, and not between the assessee in her individual capacity and the buyer. Since the assessee had not personally conducted the transfer of the immovable property, the penalty could not be levied on her individually. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that grounds 2 and 3, concerning the violation of natural justice due to the lack of personal hearing, were not tenable as the assessee did not opt for video conferencing and ample opportunities were granted. Grounds 4 and 5, relating to entertainment and foreign travel expenses, were dismissed. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce bills, vouchers, and details of expenditures for verification, justifying the NFAC's order in reducing the disallowance to 10%. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own case judgments were not applicable due to the lack of supporting evidence. Regarding Ground 6 (Section 14A), the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that separate satisfaction notes were not required if the AO disagreed and proceeded with the calculation. However, the Tribunal found that the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was not correctly applied as it should consider only investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh computation, directing the assessee to produce details of investments. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as the counsel did not argue them. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had mentioned in the statement of particulars that the entire amount had been spent, which was not controverted by the AO. The AO's order did not mention consideration of this issue. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether the amount of Rs. 1,33,76,519/- (note: the judgment mentions Rs. 1,30,13,278/- in facts and Rs. 1,33,76,519/- in the holding, likely a typographical discrepancy in the judgment) was the expenditure incurred, including depreciation. If the assessee substantiates the expenditure, the requirement of Form 9A would not survive due to the auditor's mistake. The AO was directed to grant an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 is invalid and quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to the concession made by the revenue in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was accepted that for Assessment Year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the prescribed period under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice in this case was dated June 25, 2021, which falls within this period. The Tribunal also found support from the decision in ITO vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, which reiterated the same principle for Assessment Year 2015-16. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid. The assessment year in question was 2016-17, and the notice was issued on July 29, 2022, which is beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per Section 151(ii) of the Act, the approval for issuing such a notice should be granted by the Pr. CCIT. However, in this case, the approval was granted by the Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, who is an authority of a lower rank. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Prakash Pandurang Patil, the Tribunal found the notice issued under Section 148 to be invalid. Consequently, the consequential assessments were also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's explanation and her nature of business as a roadside vendor, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- could be considered as reasonable cash availability for the bank deposit. Consequently, the AO was directed to accept Rs. 4,00,000/- as the explained source, treating the balance of Rs. 7,05,000/- as undisclosed income. Regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE, the Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Madras High Court in S.M.L.E Microfinance Limited. Since the assessment year was 2017-2018, ending on March 31, 2017, and the deposit was made prior to April 1, 2017, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply the regular rate of tax and not the higher rate under Section 115BBE. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 23, 2022, requiring compliance by March 30, 2022, is indeed invalid as it failed to provide the statutory seven days' time for compliance. The Tribunal found that only seven days were provided between the issuance of the notice and the compliance date, which is contrary to the statutory requirement. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023), the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and consequently quashed the assessment order based on this invalid notice. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued in violation of mandatory procedural requirements, such as the minimum time for compliance, renders the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed on the ground of limitation without considering the case on merits. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others (2002 AIR 1201 SC), which advocate for a liberal approach in condoning delays to advance substantial justice and prevent meritorious cases from being dismissed on technical grounds. The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to explain the grounds before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 4207, 4146, and 4345 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed on the ground of limitation without considering the case on merits. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others (2002 AIR 1201 SC), which advocate for a liberal approach in condoning delays to advance substantial justice and prevent meritorious cases from being dismissed on technical grounds. The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to explain the grounds before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 4207, 4146, and 4345 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed on the ground of limitation without considering the case on merits. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others (2002 AIR 1201 SC), which advocate for a liberal approach in condoning delays to advance substantial justice and prevent meritorious cases from being dismissed on technical grounds. The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to explain the grounds before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 4207, 4146, and 4345 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40A(3) and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total disclosed income was Rs. 3,83,930/-, while the disallowance was Rs. 12,43,000/-. It reasoned that milk products are perishable goods, and producers often do not sell them on credit. The confirmation from Pragati Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. indicated that no credit was extended to the assessee. Given that the assessee made cash purchases for business purposes and the genuineness of these transactions was undisputed, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for making payments in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 17, 2022, requiring compliance by March 24, 2022, was indeed invalid. The Tribunal found that only seven days were provided for compliance, which is less than the statutory requirement of seven clear days. This view was supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (W.P (T) No.2640 of 2023 dated 28.08.2023). Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and also quashed the assessment order that was based on this invalid notice. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be cancelled. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 4.1.2025, referring to a prior notice dated 12.11.2024, and the assessee had complied with this notice on 17.03.2025. Furthermore, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission of reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, considering that there was compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and only a minor delay in compliance. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) can be cancelled if reasonable cause is shown under Section 273B for a minor delay in compliance, especially when assessments are completed after due compliance and are not ex-parte. The operative direction was to cancel the penalty and allow the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be cancelled. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 4.1.2025, referring to a prior notice dated 12.11.2024, and the assessee had complied with this notice on 17.03.2025. Furthermore, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission of reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, considering that there was compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and only a minor delay in compliance. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) can be cancelled if reasonable cause is shown under Section 273B for a minor delay in compliance, especially when assessments are completed after due compliance and are not ex-parte. The operative direction was to cancel the penalty and allow the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be cancelled. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 4.1.2025, referring to a prior notice dated 12.11.2024, and the assessee had complied with this notice on 17.03.2025. Furthermore, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission of reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, considering that there was compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and only a minor delay in compliance. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) can be cancelled if reasonable cause is shown under Section 273B for a minor delay in compliance, especially when assessments are completed after due compliance and are not ex-parte. The operative direction was to cancel the penalty and allow the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be cancelled. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 4.1.2025, referring to a prior notice dated 12.11.2024, and the assessee had complied with this notice on 17.03.2025. Furthermore, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission of reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, considering that there was compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and only a minor delay in compliance. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) can be cancelled if reasonable cause is shown under Section 273B for a minor delay in compliance, especially when assessments are completed after due compliance and are not ex-parte. The operative direction was to cancel the penalty and allow the appeals.