ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2016

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The tribunal held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Non-communication of these reasons, despite a request, renders the reopening invalid.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Completed assessments can only be altered based on such material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect based on the retrospective CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed in limine as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the mother-in-law's statement, despite lacking documentary evidence for gold sale, was not proven false. Considering the pension received by the parents-in-law and the amount being from past savings, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the non-filing of grounds of appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order once they could file the grounds and explain the delay.

The Tribunal, considering the absence of the assessee and the unrectified defect, presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not available to the lower authorities. The issue was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when the tax payable under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under Section 115JB (MAT provisions). The Tribunal also noted that the mistake in carrying forward losses was a legacy issue from a previous assessment year and was made inadvertently.

The Tribunal held that the temporary credit balance of the company with the assessee in a running account, where the assessee had a huge debit balance for most of the year, did not constitute a loan or advance. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year where it was decided in favor of the assessee. The bye-laws applied to tenants, and the concept of mutuality was applicable as beneficiaries (flat occupants/owners) were identified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient surplus capital and no nexus was established between the interest-free advance and any interest-bearing funds. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjecture.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It emphasized that consistency can only be applied if facts and circumstances are identical across assessment years, which was not proven here. The AO needs to re-examine the eco-tourism norms and the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal held that disallowances on staff welfare expenses were made without proper verification and that FBT paid on telephone and business promotion expenses negated further disallowances. The disallowance on CNG kit was also deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that critical facts and documents, including the sale deed and the nature of the land, were not properly examined by the tax authorities. Affidavits alone are not sufficient evidence without supporting primary facts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the facts were identical to a previous assessment year where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Revenue could not point out any infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals before the ITAT if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the business expediency for incurring interest expenditure at a higher rate than the interest earned on the advanced funds. The assessee did not comply with the directions of the Tribunal and did not provide necessary evidence to justify the claim.

The Tribunal held that imposing penalty for disallowance of expenses without disproving their genuineness is not justified. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no basis for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 without applying his own independent mind, merely acting on directions from a superior authority. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act does not empower the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty. It only deems the assessee to be in default. Therefore, the penalty levied under this section is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 without applying his own independent mind, merely acting on the directions of a superior authority. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings was void.

The Tribunal held that Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act does not empower the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty. It only deems the assessee to be in default. Therefore, the penalty levied under this section is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO arbitrarily made additions based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient evidence. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition, and the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 153C without incriminating material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance related to foreign exchange fluctuation expenses, finding that these were correctly debited to Unit-III. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding special discounts and commissions, directing their proportionate allocation to Unit-III.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeals indicated a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.