ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2024

The tribunal held that a valid notice under section 143(2) is a sine qua non for a valid assessment under section 143(3) and such notice can only be issued after the return of income is filed. Issuing the notice before the return was filed constituted a jurisdictional error that could not be cured by Section 292BB, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the assessment order, finding it invalid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delayed production of documents. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to submit necessary information/documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it on merits, considering the ex-parte disposal and the substantial addition. It set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be provided a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and directed to comply with the Assessing Officer's queries.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the entire liquor business was effectively operated by the assessee AOP, and its income was offered to tax by the AOP and accepted by the AO. Therefore, disallowing only the license fee, while other related expenses were allowed, was not justified. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, concluding that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when no exempt income is earned, a fact confirmed by records and not rebutted by the Revenue. It further ruled, citing judicial precedents, that the Explanation to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2021-22.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's claim of non-service of notices, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is to provide their current email ID for notice service.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both disallowances. It noted that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on previous judgments of the Delhi High Court and co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own case, which established that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted without exempt income, and expenses under Section 36(1)(xii) were allowable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium, the present appeals cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for statistical purposes. Liberty was granted to the parties to seek revival if the NCLT order is altered or if circumstances necessitate.

The Tribunal decided that in the interest of justice, the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-evaluate the issues, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity to be heard and to present necessary information/documents.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the AO's view was plausible and the PCIT failed to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee. The PCIT's directions to make additions on account of unexplained cash and jewellery were set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, citing that the NFAC had passed its order ex parte and provided no findings on the merits of the case. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the AO's view was plausible and the PCIT failed to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee. The PCIT's directions to make additions on account of unexplained cash and jewellery were set aside.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 143(2) notice as the assessee's residence was in Gurgaon. The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice by the jurisdictional AO is a mandatory statutory obligation that cannot be dispensed with or cured. Therefore, the assessment order, being based on a jurisdictionally invalid notice, was quashed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium, the present appeals cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for statistical purposes. Liberty was granted to the parties to seek revival if the NCLT order is altered or if circumstances necessitate.

Considering the assessee's request not to press the matters, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

Considering the assessee's request not to press the matters, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

The tribunal held that a valid notice under section 143(2) is a sine qua non for a valid assessment under section 143(3) and such notice can only be issued after the return of income is filed. Issuing the notice before the return was filed constituted a jurisdictional error that could not be cured by Section 292BB, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the assessment order, finding it invalid.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, citing that the NFAC had passed its order ex parte and provided no findings on the merits of the case. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, citing that the NFAC had passed its order ex parte and provided no findings on the merits of the case. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, which constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing a fresh hearing and consideration of all evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. It directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to furnish fresh evidence, cooperating for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, which constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing a fresh hearing and consideration of all evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by passing an ex-parte order without addressing the issues on merit. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, which constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing a fresh hearing and consideration of all evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium, the present appeals cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for statistical purposes. Liberty was granted to the parties to seek revival if the NCLT order is altered or if circumstances necessitate.

The Tribunal held that once cash withdrawals by the assessee and her husband exceeded the cash deposits, it was clear the deposits were from available sources. The burden was on the revenue to prove the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was genuinely prevented from appearing before the First Appellate Authority due to counsel's illness, thus being deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the property in question never belonged to the firm but was owned and sold by the individual partners, and the sale proceeds were received by them. It also found that the notice issued under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction illegal. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It noted the assessee's failure to take remedial action against alleged forgery concerning the commodity and Axis Bank accounts, and found KYC documents linked the accounts to the assessee. Regarding the HDFC Bank credits, the Tribunal ruled that merely claiming income disclosure under section 44AD did not absolve the assessee from explaining the source of specific credit entries.

The Tribunal held that open balconies should be excluded when calculating the built-up area for Section 80IB(10) deduction, following its own prior decisions. It also found no specific findings or additions by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) regarding violations of clauses (e) and (f), and upheld the assessee's project completion method.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment. This was to provide the assessee an effective opportunity to represent her case, as there was no proper representation before the lower authorities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found the DRP's findings contradictory, stating that disputed receipts cannot simultaneously fall under both Royalty and FTS. The tribunal referred the matter back to the DRP to re-examine the issue afresh and pass appropriate directions, after which the AO would complete a de-novo assessment.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found the DRP's findings contradictory, stating that disputed receipts cannot simultaneously fall under both Royalty and FTS. The tribunal referred the matter back to the DRP to re-examine the issue afresh and pass appropriate directions, after which the AO would complete a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that open balconies should be excluded when calculating the built-up area for Section 80IB(10) deduction, following its own prior decisions. It also found no specific findings or additions by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) regarding violations of clauses (e) and (f), and upheld the assessee's project completion method.

The Tribunal held that the property sale transaction was concluded, and capital gains were already assessed for AY 2007-08. Since there was no reopening or revision of the AY 2007-08 assessment, the mere re-execution or re-registration of the sale deed in AY 2011-12 due to technical issues could not create a fresh capital gains liability, as this would lead to taxing the same income twice. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 147 for AY 2011-12 on this matter was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling on timely payment but noted the assessee's argument regarding the interpretation of 'due date' under Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referencing the Kanoi Papers case. Following a Coordinate Bench decision in Sai Computers Ltd., the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination to ascertain whether there was a delay in deposit of contributions based on the actual date of salary disbursement.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found the DRP's findings contradictory, stating that disputed receipts cannot simultaneously fall under both Royalty and FTS. The tribunal referred the matter back to the DRP to re-examine the issue afresh and pass appropriate directions, after which the AO would complete a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash, including prior withdrawals and a deposit from her husband, was substantiated by bank statements. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was legal and sustainable, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued to a non-existent entity, as the company had converted to an LLP and the AO was duly informed. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, the Tribunal found the jurisdictional defect incurable even under section 292B. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A), noting that the assessee had filed ITRs with the new address, indicating the department's knowledge of the updated address. The Tribunal found no evidence in the penalty order or CIT(A) order confirming that the notice under Section 142(1) was actually served on the assessee. Therefore, it could not be presumed that the notice was served, and consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable and infructuous, citing the low tax effect criterion established by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and relying on a previous coordinate bench decision. The Department retains the liberty to seek a recall of the order if the appeal is later deemed maintainable for any technical reasons.

Considering the condonation order issued by the CIT(E) regarding the delayed Form 10B, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to complete the assessment afresh, taking into account the belatedly filed Form 10B, after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Considering the condonation order issued by the CIT(E) regarding the delayed Form 10B, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to complete the assessment afresh, taking into account the belatedly filed Form 10B, after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the expenditures, incurred for business promotion at Taj Mahal Hotel and DLF Golf Club, were revenue in nature and not personal. The expenses were related to business meetings, launch of a new product, and promoting a new line of business, thus fulfilling the conditions under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim these expenses as allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was a mechanical exercise without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were deemed non-est and a nullity.

The Tribunal found that there was no effective representation by the assessee before the lower authorities, and the orders were passed ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity. To ensure natural justice and allow the assessee to properly present their case, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh (de novo) assessment, with instructions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1-4 challenging the reassessment jurisdiction, noting the assessee's possession of two PAN cards. However, for the addition of cash deposits (grounds 5-8), the Tribunal agreed with the principle of 'peak credit' method and remanded the issue to the AO for factual verification of peak credit workings, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was a mechanical exercise without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were deemed non-est and a nullity.

The Tribunal, after verifying the custody certificate, found that the assessee was indeed incarcerated during the period of non-compliance, making it impossible for the notices to be effectively served or responded to. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cause for non-compliance and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties levied.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Department's non-objection. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and was dismissed as such. The order was pronounced in open court.