ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the CIT(A) had rightly considered the percentage of completion method for revenue recognition and that the AO had not proven that the cash payments were over and above the total sale consideration. The Tribunal also noted that similar additions were deleted in prior years and had attained finality.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC's ex-parte order lacked proper adjudication as required by law. Thus, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the taxpayer is responsible for pleading and proving all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) and did not grant indexation benefit. Consequently, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, requiring a proper DVO reference and consideration of all relevant aspects. Both quantum and penalty appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the slight delay in filing the appeal, noting bona fide reasons. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions, especially regarding the unsubstantiated claim of multiple heirs.

The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the CIT(A)'s failure to comply with section 250(6) by not framing points of determination or providing a speaking adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present her case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate an additional ground of appeal and did not properly examine the correlation between the sale of agricultural land and the subsequent cash deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these specific issues.

The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A)-NFAC. It directed that the assessee be granted one more effective opportunity to present their case and explain the cash deposits, subject to providing all relevant facts within three opportunities.