ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the CIT(A) was correct in rejecting the protective additions against the assessees. The Tribunal found no material under section 292C to uphold these impugned protective additions. Furthermore, the share capital addition was deemed a double addition, as it had already been assessed in the preceding assessment year 2011-12.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the CIT(A) was correct in rejecting the protective additions against the assessees. The Tribunal found no material under section 292C to uphold these impugned protective additions. Furthermore, the share capital addition was deemed a double addition, as it had already been assessed in the preceding assessment year 2011-12.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and ensure that no double addition is made in the assessee's hands. The onus was placed on the assessee to present and prove all relevant facts during the consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note did not comply with the amended provisions of Section 153C, particularly as clarified by the Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Others. Since the Revenue failed to produce a compliant satisfaction note invoking the extended period, the Tribunal quashed the assessments for all four assessment years.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found doubt regarding the nature of the Rs. 50 lakh transaction, with the assessee claiming it was for property sale while the revenue argued it was a loan. The matter was remanded for further verification.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying quantum additions/disallowances, which were the very basis for imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), had been reversed in the quantum proceedings, the penalty could not be sustained. Consequently, the action of the AO in imposing the penalty was set aside and cancelled.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument for a harmonious interpretation of Section 80G(5), especially for long-established charitable organizations, noting that the CBDT had issued Circular No. 7/2024 extending due dates for Form 10A and 10AB. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) failed to consider all facts and the welfare objective of Section 80G. Therefore, the application filed in Form No. 10AB should be treated as timely, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid. It found that the 'reason to believe' recorded by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures and lacked proper application of mind, not meeting the threshold for definite escapement of income as required by Section 147. Consequently, the foundation for reopening the assessment was void ab-initio, rendering the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order bad in law.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the CIT(A) was correct in rejecting the protective additions against the assessees. The Tribunal found no material under section 292C to uphold these impugned protective additions. Furthermore, the share capital addition was deemed a double addition, as it had already been assessed in the preceding assessment year 2011-12.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The limitation period for imposing the penalty commenced from the date of the initial notice issued by the AO on December 31, 2010.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, clarified that mere quantum additions or disallowances do not automatically attract a penalty under section 271(1)(c), as these are parallel proceedings. Applying this principle, the Tribunal found that the issues in question did not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the impugned penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal considered the Delhi property's sale deed as prima facie collusive for Section 54F deduction purposes, rendering the denial of deduction for the Gurugram property unsustainable based on that ground. It also clarified that an Australian property is irrelevant for Section 54F due to the 'in India' requirement introduced by the Finance Act, 2014 amendment. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify if the Gurugram property fulfills all conditions of Section 54F, placing the onus on the assessee to provide proof.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unsecured cash loans or cash interest payments by the assessee. Upon reviewing Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal's statement, it was noted that he denied any connection with the assessee, and a prior co-ordinate bench order in a similar case had rejected his statement. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the section 69C addition and reversed the section 271D and 271E penalties due to the absence of evidence from the department.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte disposal violated principles of natural justice as the assessee's submissions were not heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was void ab initio due to several deficiencies in the satisfaction note. These included factual inaccuracies and a lack of specific findings linking seized material to the assessee's income.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the Pr. CIT, having issued Form 5 under the VSV Act and thereby accepting the settlement of the assessment dispute, could not subsequently revise the same order under Section 263. The Tribunal concluded that such a revision was unjustified, and accordingly, quashed the Pr. CIT's revision order.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2011-12 was beyond the block of 8 assessment years permissible under Section 153C, considering the date of the satisfaction note. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's business of exchanging soiled notes and currency denominations, and relied on a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case.