Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 2 of 13
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that both the Assessing Officer (AO) passed a common order and the assessee filed a combined appeal, suggesting a bona fide belief regarding the technical defect of filing a single Form 35 for multiple years. The Tribunal accepted the explanation for the 52-day delay, attributing it to the Director's father's serious illness and demise as a reasonable cause. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the 52-day delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that both the Assessing Officer (AO) passed a common order and the assessee filed a combined appeal, suggesting a bona fide belief regarding the technical defect of filing a single Form 35 for multiple years. The Tribunal accepted the explanation for the 52-day delay, attributing it to the Director's father's serious illness and demise as a reasonable cause. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the 52-day delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The tribunal, noting potential communication gaps and in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities to present their case and bears the risk and responsibility for proving it.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the cash deposit addition from Rs. 20,07,000/- to a lump sum of Rs. 2,07,000/-, thereby granting relief of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the assessee. It was also clarified that the provisions of Section 115BBE would apply to transactions only on or after April 1, 2017, citing relevant case law.
The Tribunal noted its earlier division bench common order which had already held the assessee eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) for previous assessment years. Finding no factual or legal distinction for the current assessment year, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was prima facie eligible for the same relief. The assessee's ground was accepted for statistical purposes, and the Assessing Officer was directed to finalize the consequential computation, while an 8-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal noted that while the departmental representative argued for affirming the addition, he conceded that no mandatory reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) was made during the assessment proceedings. Citing a High Court precedent which holds such a reference as mandatory, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the assessee's assessing authority is situated in Sirsa, Haryana. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal should be instituted before the appropriate Chandigarh benches, as per the STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963.
The Tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' action of disallowing the impugned TDS credits. It noted that the CPC's section 143(1) intimation at page 30 clearly showed no disallowance of the assessee's TDS credit. Therefore, all substantive grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of past savings given the assessee's socioeconomic status. It confirmed the addition only to Rs.2,63,000/-, granting a relief of Rs.6,00,000/-, with the rider that this decision should not serve as a precedent. The delay of 555 days in filing the appeal was also condoned.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities could not have added the entire cash deposits as unexplained. While the assessee could not fully prove the source, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,58,000/- was deemed just and proper in the peculiar facts of the case, granting the assessee a relief of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority proceeded ex-parte without a clear finding on service of notice. In the interest of justice, the case is restored to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present facts and evidence.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to prove genuineness and the department's lack of doubt on corresponding sales, decided to restrict the disallowance to a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for bogus purchases. This provided relief of Rs. 12,02,720/- to the assessee, with the condition that this specific resolution would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits could prima facie represent the earlier cash withdrawal. Consequently, the unexplained investment addition was restricted from Rs. 14 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, granting relief of Rs. 13 lakhs. It was also clarified that Section 115BBE would apply under normal provisions, given that its applicability date was subsequent to the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities had consistently made the disallowance and the assessee failed to rebut this finding throughout the assessment and appellate stages. Finding no merit in the assessee's substantive ground due to lack of rebuttal, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without framing points of determination or providing detailed findings as required by Section 250(6). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present their case and raise all legal and factual arguments.
The Tribunal, relying on the `Sunil Kumar Aggarwal` judgment which makes DVO reference mandatory even without taxpayer objection, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer. This was for a fresh adjudication, as no DVO reference was made by the lower authorities under the 3rd proviso to Section 56(2)(x) read with Section 50C(2).
The Tribunal observed that the discrepancy between the P&L Account and Form 26AS figures indicated a dispute over revenue recognition rather than inaccurate particulars of income. Citing CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal acknowledged the critical relevance of the assessee's submitted details to the case's outcome. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification, granting the assessee three opportunities to present and prove its case, subject to the condition of doing so at its own risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal found that both the assessee's and department's valuations were based on assumptions. It deemed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1 lakh appropriate, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 3.04 lakhs, with a caveat that this estimation should not set a precedent.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the computation to ensure that no double addition is made for ESI/PF and Labour Welfare Funds contribution. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying a need for verification of the double addition claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish its relationship with the lenders as shareholders or provide supporting details during prior proceedings. While acknowledging that amounts from shareholders should not be prima facie treated as unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is required to plead and prove its case, at its own risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for both the 12-day delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), thus condoning the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication to the file of the CIT(A), directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for EPF/ESI contributions paid after the statutory due dates but before the Section 139(1) return filing date is settled against the assessee by higher court pronouncements. However, for all other arguments regarding the calculation date from actual payment of salary and compliance, the Assessing Authority was directed to verify the relevant facts in consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee already had a debit balance of the same amount in the KCC account. It held that the impugned cash deposits should be treated as KCC loan amounts, and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities under sections 68/69 read with 115BBE was not sustainable in law and was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) (ITA 3673), citing that re-estimation of profits does not automatically attract this penalty. The penalty under section 271B (ITA 3674) was also deleted, acknowledging delayed filing due to circumstances beyond control. For the meat purchase disallowances (ITA 3677-3679), the Tribunal estimated a uniform disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each year, noting neither party fully discharged their onus.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the salesman commission, noting it was a trade discount not subject to TDS, and reversed the 10% ad-hoc disallowance of expenses for lack of proper enquiry. However, it sustained the disallowances for sundry creditors and Chapter IV-A deduction due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary details or representation.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) (ITA 3673), citing that re-estimation of profits does not automatically attract this penalty. The penalty under section 271B (ITA 3674) was also deleted, acknowledging delayed filing due to circumstances beyond control. For the meat purchase disallowances (ITA 3677-3679), the Tribunal estimated a uniform disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each year, noting neither party fully discharged their onus.
The Tribunal noted the relevance of the additional evidences, which the Revenue did not dispute. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, conditional on the taxpayer submitting and proving all relevant facts within three opportunities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) (ITA 3673), citing that re-estimation of profits does not automatically attract this penalty. The penalty under section 271B (ITA 3674) was also deleted, acknowledging delayed filing due to circumstances beyond control. For the meat purchase disallowances (ITA 3677-3679), the Tribunal estimated a uniform disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each year, noting neither party fully discharged their onus.
The Tribunal, following the reasoning in a similar case concerning employees of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, held that employees bound by civil services/conduct rules are entitled to the exemption. The employer's status as a government entity was crucial for this entitlement.
The Tribunal, considering the specific facts and the assessee's evidence of past withdrawals, treated Rs. 28 lakhs of the cash deposits as accumulated withdrawals and savings. Consequently, the remaining addition of Rs. 11,40,320/- was confirmed as unexplained deposits, with the clarification that this estimation should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) (ITA 3673), citing that re-estimation of profits does not automatically attract this penalty. The penalty under section 271B (ITA 3674) was also deleted, acknowledging delayed filing due to circumstances beyond control. For the meat purchase disallowances (ITA 3677-3679), the Tribunal estimated a uniform disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each year, noting neither party fully discharged their onus.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) (ITA 3673), citing that re-estimation of profits does not automatically attract this penalty. The penalty under section 271B (ITA 3674) was also deleted, acknowledging delayed filing due to circumstances beyond control. For the meat purchase disallowances (ITA 3677-3679), the Tribunal estimated a uniform disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each year, noting neither party fully discharged their onus.
The Tribunal confirmed the validity of the reassessment but acknowledged that a major portion of the cash deposits was likely "on-money" from agricultural land transactions. While the assessee did not fully prove the source, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 5,00,000/-, granting relief for Rs. 40.01 lakhs.
The Tribunal observed that since the Assessing Officer himself identified the source of the cash credit as an advance for a plot sale, which was the basis for reopening the assessment, treating it as unexplained would contradict the very reasons for reassessment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 37.50 lakhs.
The Tribunal condoned the 16-day delay in filing Form 10B, considering it a procedural lapse. It noted that Form 10B was available with the assessee at the time of filing the return of income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Form 10B available on record while processing the return of income and pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) by not framing points of determination or providing a detailed adjudication for the Section 69A addition. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the condition that the taxpayer proves all relevant facts within three opportunities.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of bogus purchases (Rs. 72,50,159/-) based on judicial consistency with a prior appeal for the same assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D (Rs. 62,36,940/-) was restricted to the actual exempt income of Rs. 32,780/-, adhering to the principle that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no violation of Section 10(34A) and no evidence of a sham transaction. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s reasoning for allowing LTCG at the special rate to be sound.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's bio-medical waste treatment facility qualifies as an infrastructure facility under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal noted that this was a recurring issue and previous ITAT orders had favored the assessee.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, they are not sustainable when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee (e.g., husband of one of the assessees) and the assessee in question is found to be a mere name-lender without independent income.
The ITAT, relying on a precedent involving a sister concern, confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under Sections 69C and 68, finding no defect in the assessee's books or the genuineness of purchases. The ITAT further deleted the CIT(A)'s estimated addition of 0.25% on cash sales, stating there was no basis for such estimation as the assessee had already disclosed profits.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, they are not sustainable when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee (e.g., husband of one of the assessees) and the assessee in question is found to be a mere name-lender without independent income.
The ITAT, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the substantial addition sustained, held that the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper hearing and re-adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Tribunal found that the approval under Section 151 was a mere formality, simply "approved" without due consideration. Citing precedents like CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. and PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., the tribunal quashed the impugned reopening initiated under Section 148/147, rendering all other arguments on merits academic.
The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, ruled that Sections 68 or 69A cannot be invoked when the assessee has declared the source of cash deposits in its books of accounts, and the lower authorities have not rejected the books or provided material to support a contrary view. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits satisfactory, noting that the cash sales were recorded in its books and the VAT returns were not rejected. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal, citing previous decisions, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the methodology for calculating the due date of PF/ESI deposits, specifically considering the month of actual salary disbursement, and pass a fresh order after granting the assessee a proper hearing and opportunity to present facts.