ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the manual cash book found from the company's premises, which was reconciled with the company's books and did not lead to additions in the company's assessment, could not be considered incriminating material for the assessee under Section 153A. The Tribunal also noted that Section 153C should have been invoked if the document related to the assessee. Furthermore, the benefit of cash disclosed under the Income Declaration Scheme should have been allowed for telescoping.

The Tribunal observed that assessment proceedings at lower levels were ex-parte as the assessee claimed not to have received notices, which were sent to the Chartered Accountant's email. Finding procedural infirmities and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and present information.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable. The AO's assessment was based on a debatable issue with two possible views, and reliance on a High Court decision that did not consider a subsequent Supreme Court ruling was misplaced.

The Tribunal noted that NFAC dismissed the appeal solely because no submissions were made, without adjudicating on merits. Deeming this a denial of reasonable opportunity, the Tribunal remanded the case back to NFAC to pass a fresh order on merits after affording the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-resident who rendered services outside India, was eligible for exemption on his salary income. Therefore, no taxability arose on the salary received by the assessee.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the books of accounts, even though rejected by the AO. The Tribunal held that if purchases and sales are genuine, corresponding cash deposits from sales should not be treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the payments were ex-gratia and voluntary, without any legal obligation on the employer's part, and therefore did not fall under 'profits in lieu of salary' as per Section 17(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Departmental Representative could not introduce new arguments beyond the scope considered by the AO or CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence to link the written-off investment in ATN with the subsequent sale of film rights. Therefore, the disallowance of the written-off amount was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were in the nature of employee salary costs, not FTS, as there was an employer-employee relationship and no specific services were rendered by the assessee to the Indian AEs. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the original assessment order lacked proper inquiry by the AO, who merely accepted the documents filed. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs Pr.CIT, Kolkata-III, which upheld similar actions by the Pr.CIT, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Pr.CIT's findings. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the revision order and lack of opportunity were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of facts, and the subsequent restriction by DSIR was not a deliberate attempt to furnish inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted as the rigors of Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted.

The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Applications, recalling the ex-parte dismissal for a fresh hearing. Consequently, the matter regarding the ESI/PF contributions is remanded to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to examine the payment dates and allow the deduction in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Vs. CIT. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for depreciation was allowable, following its own previous order for a subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 to 13.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee lacked effective representation before lower authorities, and the CIT(A) improperly rejected the admission of additional evidence despite the assessee not being afforded proper opportunity by the AO. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, mandating a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to produce evidence.

The Tribunal held that the marketing and reservation contributions are not in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services. It followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, which held similar receipts as not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the advances shown as liabilities had not ceased to exist and therefore Section 41(1) was not applicable. It also held that the legal and professional expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and were allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding no illegality in the transaction. It noted that the original MOU was duly cancelled, and there was no evidence of any on-money payment. The DVO's belated valuation also supported a lower property value than the final sale deed, further undermining the AO's inference.

The tribunal, noting the assessee's plea of non-receipt of notices due to technical issues and the absence of objection from the Revenue, remitted the matter back to the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (A) was directed to consider the issue afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the advances shown as liabilities had not ceased to exist and therefore Section 41(1) was not applicable. It also held that the legal and professional expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and were allowable.

The tribunal, noting the assessee's plea of non-receipt of notices due to technical issues and the absence of objection from the Revenue, remitted the matter back to the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (A) was directed to consider the issue afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT allowed both grounds of the assessee's appeal. For the first ground, it held that the rental and maintenance income should be treated as 'income from house property' as the assessee was not engaged in systematic activity of providing services, and this treatment was consistent with past assessments. For the second ground, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing income by disallowing interest expenditure, as the A.O. had already considered the assessee's explanation and made no such addition during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the advances shown as liabilities had not ceased to exist and therefore Section 41(1) was not applicable. It also held that the legal and professional expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and were allowable.

The Tribunal held that the ex parte rejections by the CIT(E) without providing a due opportunity of hearing constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Applications, recalling the ex-parte dismissal for a fresh hearing. Consequently, the matter regarding the ESI/PF contributions is remanded to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to examine the payment dates and allow the deduction in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Vs. CIT. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal ruled that the notice issued by the ACIT under Section 143(2) was without jurisdiction, as the declared NIL income fell within the ITO's purview according to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this defective notice was declared void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the ex parte rejections by the CIT(E) without providing a due opportunity of hearing constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte assessment and the dismissal *in limine* by the FAA on the ground of delay. It set aside the FAA's order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for depreciation was allowable, following its own previous order for a subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 to 13.

The Tribunal held that since the appellant opted to purchase land and plots were allotted, the transaction effectively became an agreement to sell/purchase, and thus, no interest income accrued. The addition made by the AO on account of notional interest was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order, which is not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, requiring the CIT(A) to state points for determination, decision, and reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal by relying on new documents filed by the assessee without seeking comments from the Assessing Officer. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a de novo decision, requiring the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and obtain comments from the AO on the new evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the additions without seeking a Remand Report from the Assessing Authority or providing the AO an opportunity to rebut. To ensure fair play and natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the grounds back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, mandating that both parties be given due opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced compensation was taxable in AY 2015-16. However, it directed the AO to allow a proportionate deduction for the cost of land for AY 2015-16 and to pass a rectification order for AY 2017-18 to prevent double taxation of the same income.

The Tribunal held that since the firm was indeed subject to tax audit and the CPC itself had accepted 31.10.2013 as the firm's due date, the department cannot adopt a different due date for the partner. Consequently, the levy of interest under section 234A based on an incorrect due date was erroneous and directed to be deleted. The interest under section 234B was deemed consequential.

The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be granted due opportunity to furnish supporting evidence and that the AO confine to the additions made in the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, all ongoing proceedings in any court or tribunal against the assessee cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes, granting parties the opportunity to revive them if the NCLT order is later reversed or modified.

The ITAT noted the assessee's submission that notices did not reach them due to a wrong email ID and sought an opportunity to present their case. With no objection from the Revenue, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, all ongoing proceedings in any court or tribunal against the assessee cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes, granting parties the opportunity to revive them if the NCLT order is later reversed or modified.

Considering the application and submissions from the assessee's counsel, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on the grounds of settlement under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as requested by the assessee's representative. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years were dismissed as withdrawn.

Considering the assessee is a 75-year-old senior person who struggled to arrange tax papers, and with the consent of the Revenue, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-adjudicate the matter afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, all ongoing proceedings in any court or tribunal against the assessee cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes, granting parties the opportunity to revive them if the NCLT order is later reversed or modified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. It found that the issues were indeed covered by its own decisions in the assessee's identical cases for previous years. Furthermore, for specific additions, the Tribunal noted that the AO's own remand reports submitted to the CIT(A) either confirmed reconciliation of discrepancies or lacked concrete evidence to substantiate the additions.

The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT-imposed moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, all ongoing proceedings in any court or tribunal against the assessee cannot continue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes, granting parties the opportunity to revive them if the NCLT order is later reversed or modified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it failed to specify the exact limb under which the penalty was being initiated. This failure to specify the charge renders the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the notice u/s 148 and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 as no arguments were presented. It was held that ₹2,08,000/- of the cash deposit was explained by agricultural income, and the remaining ₹13,00,000/- was explained by earlier cash withdrawals from the bank during the same financial year. Consequently, the entire addition of ₹15,08,000/- was deleted.

For the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal, relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, restricted the disallowance to the actual exempt income of Rs. 930/-, holding that the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A is not retrospective. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the matter was remanded to the AO to re-examine the facts, including the actual interest amount, the inclusion of processing fees, and whether the payees had already accounted for the income and paid taxes, in light of Delhi High Court judgments.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as requested by the assessee's representative. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years were dismissed as withdrawn.