Loading ITAT cases…
31 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter to the AO for factual verification without adjudicating the pure legal grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. PCIT, which stated that if an infirmity arises at the CIT(A)'s level, the issue should be decided by the CIT(A) and not remanded back to the AO, especially when jurisdictional grounds were raised. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order in light of the legal grounds raised by the assessee and the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not applied its mind properly or conducted a critical analysis of the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) merely observed that the Assessing Officer's findings did not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity, without appreciating the assessee's arguments. The Tribunal emphasized that the reason is the 'life of law' and that the absence of analysis indicates a non-application of mind. Citing Section 250(6) of the Act, the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) was expected to state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal, treating the cause shown by the assessee as sufficient in the interest of justice, given the uncontroverted affidavit. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had passed the impugned order ex-parte because the assessee did not respond to notices issued on 18.08.2025, 15.09.2025, and 06.10.2025. While acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for passing an order afresh on merits in accordance with law. The Tribunal directed the first appellate authority to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation regarding health issues and communication lapses sufficient. Regarding the ex-parte order by the CIT(A), the Tribunal acknowledged that the first appellate authority had provided 11 opportunities to the assessee, which were not utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the original assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144. Despite the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment in accordance with law. The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and failure to respond to multiple notices from the CIT(A) were noted and not appreciated, the assessment order itself was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal should be allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction is to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the AO for fresh assessment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer had considered only the credit side of the bank account and ignored the debit side, specifically the withdrawals totaling Rs. 1,73,10,000/-. The AO also overlooked the opening cash balance of Rs. 42,56,274/- and cash sale proceeds of Rs. 1,08,62,989/-. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the reconciliation of bank accounts, opening balance, cash withdrawals, and sales proceeds. Considering these factors and the desire to meet the ends of substantial justice, the Tribunal directed that the addition be restricted to Rs. 25,00,000/-. The remaining addition of Rs. 2,46,20,500/- was directed to be deleted. The issue regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE was not explicitly decided, but the relief granted implies its non-application in its original form.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of delay without condoning it. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the assessee, including the affidavit of the counsel, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay of 112 days in filing the first appeal before the NFAC. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the Tribunal emphasized that the object of procedural rules and limitation periods is to advance the cause of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 112 days. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the NFAC for passing an order afresh on merits, ensuring substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice require giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The Tribunal was of the considered view that a mere technical glitch in mentioning the wrong provision of law in an online application should not prejudice the substantial rights of the assessee. Consequently, the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to allow the assessee to revise its application, specifying the correct provision of law under which it intends to seek registration and corresponding approval. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 17,62,500/- as unexplained cash investment is unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not dispute the registered sale deed amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- paid by cheque, nor did it dispute that this amount was paid electronically. The assessee had categorically denied making any additional cash payment. The Assessing Officer's reasoning that the possibility of unaccounted cash payments could not be ruled out simply because a transaction occurred, and the CIT(A)'s observation that the registered consideration was for registration purposes and did not rule out unaccounted consideration, were found to be insufficient. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the assessee was neither provided with the material seized during the search nor afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were the basis for the addition. The confirmation letter from the builder, which stated that only the registered sale consideration was paid, was brushed aside by the CIT(A) without proper justification. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 17,62,500/-. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of reassessment was not explicitly decided as the primary ground for deletion was the lack of procedural fairness.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) had stated that a physical appeal (ITA No. 617/Agr/2026) had already been filed on 10.08.2026 against the same impugned order dated 02.01.2026. Consequently, the AR moved an application requesting that the present online-filed appeal be considered as withdrawn, as it was a duplicate filing. In view of the prayer made by the assessee, the Tribunal dismissed the present duplicate appeal as withdrawn. No other issue was decided.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in reopening the case under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law. The primary reason for reopening was the verification of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,55,48,922. However, the disallowances made by the AO were under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest expenses and rent, and no addition was made on account of unsecured loans. The Tribunal, following the ratio of the cited precedents, including ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT, concluded that additions not emanating from the reasons for reopening do not survive. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed. Consequently, the remaining factual and legal issues were not adjudicated upon. The appeal was allowed on this preliminary legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- as unaccounted cash was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made based on an excel sheet found during a search on a third party, and the assessee had categorically denied making any cash payment. There was no corroborating evidence to prove the genuineness of the excel sheet's contents. Crucially, the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine any persons whose statements allegedly formed the basis of the addition. The Tribunal reiterated the settled legal principle that documents found in the possession of a third party are not admissible as evidence unless the assessee is given an opportunity to rebut their contents or to cross-examine the relevant persons. The Tribunal also noted that no cash was found in the possession of the assessee. While the investigation report might have been sufficient to trigger reopening, the addition could not be made solely on generalized, uncorroborated information from a third-party survey, which lacks evidentiary value. Therefore, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not fully explain the source of cash deposits and the reasons for withdrawals exceeding Rs. 10,000. The CIT(A) had also noted the assessee's admission of maintaining some cash as capital investment for smooth business functioning, without quantifying it or explaining its source. Therefore, the assessee's submission that no addition should be made was not tenable. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission seeking the application of the peak credit theory. To provide another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for applying the peak credit in respect of the cash deposits. The Tribunal clarified that the assessed total income should not exceed Rs. 8,41,615, which was the assessed total income by the AO. All grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the Rs. 7,10,000/- claimed as cash loans from seven persons, the Tribunal noted that while the NFAC had doubts about the affidavits, no inquiry was made by the AO during remand proceedings. Given that the affidavits were on record and not investigated, the addition of Rs. 7,10,000/- was not sustained. For the Rs. 2,25,000/- claimed as opening cash balance, the Tribunal, considering the acceptance of cash receipts from agricultural land sale, found the assessee's status to have an opening cash balance acceptable. Similarly, for the Rs. 3,40,000/- claimed as agricultural income, the Tribunal accepted it based on the land holdings submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the entire addition of Rs. 12,66,000/- sustained by the NFAC was deleted. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments regarding the affidavits and the NFAC's reasoning on savings to be persuasive, emphasizing that the initial onus shifts to the department once basic evidence is provided. The Tribunal also noted the applicability of equitable discretion under Section 69/69A for an assessee in the appellant's circumstances. Other grounds were left undecided as they became academic.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, leading to ex-parte orders at both the assessment and appellate stages, could not be appreciated, the interest of justice warranted a fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, which were not responded to by the assessee, compelling the ex-parte order. However, considering the assessment order was also ex-parte under Section 144, the ITAT deemed it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative with the AO for expeditious disposal and emphasized that the AO must ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption under Section 54F. The primary issue was the delay of 7 months and 18 days in purchasing the new residential flat. The Tribunal took judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic and its peak period, coinciding with the delayed investment. It referred to the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of limitation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the delay fell within this excluded period, it was condoned. The Tribunal reiterated that Section 54F is a beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee. The delay, caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control (medical condition and pandemic), should not defeat the claim for exemption, especially when the investment was ultimately made. Therefore, the assessee was held entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 54F. The appeal was allowed on this ground. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,99,438/- as bogus cash sales under Section 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the sales were recorded in the audited books of accounts, supported by stock records, and accepted by VAT authorities. The AO's approach of treating sales as bogus for want of documentary evidence from purchasers, without disproving the genuineness of sales through adverse evidence, was found to be arbitrary. The Tribunal also held that the addition of Rs. 72,91,858/- as excess cash sales under Section 69A was not justified. The Tribunal relied on the fact that the entire cash sales were duly recorded in the audited books and accepted by VAT authorities. It was emphasized that additions cannot be made solely based on a higher ratio of cash deposits to sales during demonetization without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in Bipin Babu Agarwal (supra) and coordinate benches, stating that additions based on suspicion or arbitrary methods are not permissible when sales are recorded in audited books and accepted by other authorities. The impugned additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are time-barred and bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2021, substituted sections 147 to 151 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and the old law ceased to operate. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed that after 01.04.2021, any reference to the Income Tax Act means the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court held that the time limit for issuing reassessment notices u/s 149 operates retrospectively for three years and six years for escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lacs. The judgment specifically referred to paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal, where the Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. In the present case, the initial notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.06.2021, and a subsequent notice was issued on 30.07.2022. Both are beyond the period of limitation for AY 2015-16 as per TOLA and the concession made by the Revenue. Consequently, all consequential assessment proceedings are quashed. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Other grounds were rendered academic and not adjudicated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The AO's disallowance was found to be ad-hoc and lacking specific evidence of the expenditure being bogus or non-genuine, while the assessee provided sufficient documentation to support the revenue nature of the expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The AO's disallowance was found to be ad-hoc and lacking specific evidence of the expenditure being bogus or non-genuine, while the assessee provided sufficient documentation to support the revenue nature of the expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any specific defects in the assessee's accounts or evidence, and the assessee had provided sufficient substantiation for the expenses being revenue in nature.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The AO's disallowance was found to be ad-hoc and lacking specific evidence of the expenditure being bogus or non-genuine, while the assessee provided sufficient documentation to support the revenue nature of the expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that while the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were quashed, for others, only the profit element of unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the full addition and restriction to profit was upheld for those years.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices for certain assessment years were invalid. For the remaining valid reassessment years, it was held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.