ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with 274 was defective due to ambiguity, as it mentioned both charges with 'or' while the assessment order indicated 'and'. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal ruled that merely claiming a deduction not sustainable in law, when all particulars are disclosed in the return and Tax Audit Report, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products P Ltd. Thus, the penalty was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's joint bank account statement entries. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the onus on the assessee to plead and prove relevant facts.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lacs of share application money for which no details were provided by the assessee. For the remaining Rs. 95 lacs, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide necessary details and fulfill the conditions of section 68.

The Tribunal determined that the assessee possessed sufficient interest-free own funds (Rs. 1,27,56,603.22) exceeding the interest-free advances to sister concerns (Rs. 93,82,912/-). Citing judicial precedents, it was held that the interest-free advances must be presumed to have been made from the assessee's own funds. Consequently, the disallowance of bank interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), affirmed that the 'due date' for such deposits is strictly that prescribed by the respective statutes. However, noting the absence of detailed factual verification by the lower authorities, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of all relevant facts, placing the onus on the assessee to prove compliance.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of specific defects in the evidence filed, restricted the addition from Rs. 16,29,191/- to Rs. 1,29,191/-, thereby granting the assessee relief of Rs. 15,00,000/-. This decision includes a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as it was based solely on an uncorroborated seized document (printout). It emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and the denial of cross-examination opportunity to the assessee, citing judicial precedents against making additions based on "dumb documents" without detailed supportive evidence.

The Tribunal, citing Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & another (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), condoned the 326-day delay in filing the lower appeal. It restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting three effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee is responsible for pleading and proving all relevant facts in consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the unrefuted condonation averments by the assessee, condoned the 48-day delay in filing the lower appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the stipulation that the assessee must plead and prove all relevant facts in subsequent proceedings.

The tribunal noted that the prescribed authority had approved the Assessing Officer's proposal with a mere 'yes', which is not sustainable in law as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313. Based on this, the tribunal quashed the impugned reassessment itself, rejecting the Revenue's arguments.

The Tribunal held that for unabated years, additions under Section 153A without incriminating material are not permissible. For abated years, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions when the AO's remand report substantiated the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that for unabated years, additions under Section 153A without incriminating material are not permissible. For abated years, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions when the AO's remand report substantiated the assessee's explanation.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the Section 69A addition from Rs. 7.88 lakhs to Rs. 1.88 lakhs. It deleted the balance Rs. 6 lakhs, considering the assessee's social-economic status, and noted that accumulation of past savings and cash withdrawals could not be ruled out.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the CBDT circular, which mandates this limit, applies retrospectively to all pending appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of proper adjudication by the CIT(A), restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh and appropriate adjudication. It stipulated that the assessee bears the responsibility to plead and prove all relevant facts during the remanded proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable as the nature of payments was not that of a loan or advance from the company to the shareholder, and the ingredients of the section were not satisfied. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities erred in law and facts by initiating and completing twin assessments against the assessee. It was concluded that the impugned assessment by the Hapur AO was without jurisdiction, given that another AO had already initiated and dropped Section 148 proceedings for the same assessment year. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated years, additions under Section 153A without incriminating material are not permissible. For abated years, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions when the AO's remand report substantiated the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect of Rs. 56,48,896/- was below the Rs. 60 lakhs minimum threshold set by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which applies retrospectively. The Departmental Representative did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision jurisdiction was wrongly invoked as the assessee had already offered the advances for taxation in subsequent years. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the 184-day delay, finding the explanation bonafide and without mala fide intent. Noting that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted the AR's submission that the delay was due to the Covid period and Supreme Court orders extending the limitation. With both parties agreeing, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the case afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that for unabated years, additions under Section 153A without incriminating material are not permissible. For abated years, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions when the AO's remand report substantiated the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed in its duty to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) with explicit directions to pass a speaking order on the merits, ensuring that the assessee is provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly explained the source of the impugned addition of Rs. 24.50 lakh with relevant evidence and bank statements. As the Revenue did not rebut this explanation, the addition was deleted. Other grounds of appeal were not pressed by the assessee's counsel.

The Tribunal determined that the assessee possessed sufficient interest-free own funds (Rs. 1,27,56,603.22) exceeding the interest-free advances to sister concerns (Rs. 93,82,912/-). Citing judicial precedents, it was held that the interest-free advances must be presumed to have been made from the assessee's own funds. Consequently, the disallowance of bank interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.

The tribunal condoned the 685-day delay in filing the lower appeal, emphasizing the Supreme Court's directives regarding the exclusion of the Covid-19 period for limitation. It restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, with the condition that the assessee is responsible for proving all relevant facts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC did not adjudicate the assessee's legal grounds and merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's inability to represent their case before the lower authorities, remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 184-day delay, finding the explanation bonafide and without mala fide intent. Noting that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that for unabated years, additions under Section 153A without incriminating material are not permissible. For abated years, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions when the AO's remand report substantiated the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal restricted the impugned addition to a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, noting that neither the assessee provided a cash flow statement nor the department identified a specific defect. This decision granted the assessee a relief of Rs. 5,00,000/-, with the condition that this estimation would not set a precedent.

Following the principle of consistency and a similar remand order for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue of disallowance of provision for Post-Sales Customer Support and warranties for AY 2015-16 back to the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to freshly consider the issue, examine all details, and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order under s. 143(3) for AY 2006-07, passed on 29.12.2008, did not abate upon a subsequent search initiated on 26.03.2010 under s. 132(1). Citing Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal clarified that the assessment stood concluded before the search, and the mere pendency of an appeal does not cause abatement. The assessee did not argue the merits of the disallowance before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that a debatable issue of addition arising from a change in accounting method does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that both the original and revised returns were defective as they were not accompanied by pre-paid taxes. The Assessing Officer should have issued a defect notice under Section 139(9) or proceeded under Section 144 for best judgment assessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable as the nature of payments was not that of a loan or advance from the company to the shareholder, and the ingredients of the section were not satisfied. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that for unabated years, additions under Section 153A without incriminating material are not permissible. For abated years, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions when the AO's remand report substantiated the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal, noting that the assessee did not receive notice, remitted the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the Assessee's AR undertaking to provide necessary information to the CIT(E) during the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, including protective and substantive additions, for which the penalties were levied had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) deleting these penalties, and thus, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, including protective and substantive additions, for which the penalties were levied had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) deleting these penalties, and thus, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal, noting that the assessee did not receive notice, remitted the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the Assessee's AR undertaking to provide necessary information to the CIT(E) during the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's cross-appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The assessee's ground regarding the Education Cess was not pressed and was rejected. The assessee's appeal regarding the Section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance was allowed, as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction under Section 14A(2) for making the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. This decision was made to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, with the direction that the assessee must cooperate and avoid seeking unreasonable adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order lacked the framing of points of determination and detailed adjudication as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present all relevant facts at its own risk and responsibility.

The Tribunal considered the rectification order dated 06.12.2024, which reduced the final adjustment to Rs. 9,503/-. Based on this and the request from the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal deemed it proper to dismiss both the stay application and the corresponding appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the facts and documents submitted by the assessee, and had dismissed the appeals without adjudicating the various grounds raised. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the facts and documents submitted by the assessee, and had dismissed the appeals without adjudicating the various grounds raised. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.