ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings, based on the AO's recommendation, was too late relative to the completion of assessment proceedings.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on its merits, a practice contrary to settled legal principles. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings, based on the AO's recommendation, was too late relative to the completion of assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the assessee's non-cooperation during verification proceedings and failure to explain the sources of substantial credit entries, specifically invoking Section 68. It upheld the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) for rental income but found no reason to interfere with the sustained addition of Rs. 1,15,16,924/- due to lack of supporting evidence. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings, based on the AO's recommendation, was too late relative to the completion of assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E)'s orders were ex-parte and held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, both appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity and for the assessee to furnish the requested documents.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E)'s orders were ex-parte and held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, both appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity and for the assessee to furnish the requested documents.

The Tribunal held that since the penalty was consequential to the additions, and those additions were deleted, the penalty orders would not sustain. Therefore, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty orders, being consequential, would not sustain. Therefore, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings, based on the AO's recommendation dated 08/12/2017, was considered to have occurred on that date, making the subsequent penalty orders time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings, based on the AO's recommendation, was too late relative to the completion of assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings, based on the AO's recommendation, was too late relative to the completion of assessment proceedings.

The tribunal noted that the assessment order was silent on the interest charges made in the computation sheet. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for a de-novo computation consistent with the assessment order dated 24/12/2019, allowing the assessee to provide explanations and receive consequential benefits.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the 'no objection' from the Revenue's representative. Permitting the withdrawal, the Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order, which was the basis for the penalty, had been quashed due to additions being made in an abated assessment without incriminating material, the consequential penalty order under section 271(1)(c) could not survive. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under Section 221(1) for non-payment of self-assessment tax, especially when the assessee had reasonable cause and paid the tax promptly. The Tribunal also considered the specific circumstances of the case regarding the payment of self-assessment tax.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the assessee had demonstrated that the cash deposited was from cash sales, and the books of accounts were audited and not rejected by the AO. The Revenue failed to bring any adverse material to controvert the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal found the assessee acted as a commission agent (kachha arahtia) for Mother Dairy, meaning only the gross commission of Rs. 4.62 lakh constituted his turnover. Since this amount was below the threshold for a mandatory tax audit under section 44AB, the provisions of section 44AB were not attracted, and thus, the penalty under section 271B was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not made independent inquiries and had not rejected the assessee's claim regarding cash sales. Since the AO accepted the sales and purchases, and the stock remained undisturbed, the addition based on conjecture and surmises was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved a reasonable opportunity to be heard, noting claims of non-receipt of physical notices and late receipt of the assessment order. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh de-novo assessment, with instructions for the assessee to comply and the AO to provide reasonable opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it not intentional and due to a bona fide reason. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing the AO to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the explanation for the delay and non-submission of evidence before the CIT(A) plausible due to the Id. AR's mother's illness. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging its vital importance for the correct adjudication of income, and consequently remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the new evidence, consider seeking a remand report from the AO if necessary, and decide the issues afresh after providing a hearing opportunity and passing a reasoned order.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed/unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the AO's additions for suppressed sales and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) were not supported by such material for the impugned assessment years, they were directed to be deleted. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the benefit of Section 115BAB was allowed in the first year of claim by a co-ordinate Bench, it cannot be denied in the subsequent assessment year solely due to the initial late filing of Form 10ID in the first year. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the benefit for A.Y. 2022-23.

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed/unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the AO's additions for suppressed sales and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) were not supported by such material for the impugned assessment years, they were directed to be deleted. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and demonstrated a complete non-application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was passed without providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard due to communication issues after her husband's demise. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A), noting that it was dismissed in limine without considering the merits. The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee. The assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

Noting that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and the assessee's plea regarding natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the penalty issue afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed/unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the AO's additions for suppressed sales and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) were not supported by such material for the impugned assessment years, they were directed to be deleted. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal. It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and pass a fresh order (de novo) in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to respond to the CIT(A)'s notice without fail.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on its merits, merely reproducing the assessment order and adjournment details. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh on merit, ensuring the assessee is provided an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal held that additions made in completed/unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the AO's additions for suppressed sales and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) were not supported by such material for the impugned assessment years, they were directed to be deleted. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the non-resident shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction through banking channels. Consequently, the share application money was considered a capital receipt not exigible to tax.

The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but as business income. It further held that since the assessee had already offered this income as business income in terms of the MAP and this was accepted by the Department in earlier years, the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal related to Section 12A as infructuous, as registration was subsequently granted. For the Section 80G appeal, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order rejecting the application for non-compliance, and restored the matter for de-novo adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with all queries.