ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly substantiate the impugned addition, brushing aside the assessee's submissions regarding opening cash balance. The action of treating cash deposits as unexplained was found to be without merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and the Revenue had no objection to the appeals being disposed of under this scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee remained absent throughout the proceedings, leading to an ex-parte decision. The CIT(A)/NFAC had already restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. Given the circumstances, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the remand directions.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessments under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were not sustainable in law as the assessment years involved were unabated. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the Ld. DR raised no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive it if the scheme application fails.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessments under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were not sustainable in law as the assessment years involved were unabated. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 447 days, citing Supreme Court judgments and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal held that the facts were identical to a previous case where a similar addition was confirmed. However, upon considering the assessee's evidence showing the impugned sum as commercial sale/purchase transactions, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stand. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, in the interest of judicial consistency and to avoid contradictory findings, restored the instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the addition of Rs. 29,17,000/- was disputed, a lump sum addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- representing the profit element in the cash sales would be just and proper, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's explanation regarding previous withdrawals as the source for cash deposits. It directed a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12, while entirely deleting the addition of Rs.2,45,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13.

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds raised in the Section 154 proceedings. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal against the original assessment order, with the delay condoned.

The Tribunal held that the evidence provided by the assessee, including regular income tax returns and banking channel transactions of related parties, sufficiently supported the investment. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessments under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were not sustainable in law as the assessment years involved were unabated. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

The Tribunal found that reasonable cause existed for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's explanation regarding previous withdrawals as the source for cash deposits. It directed a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12, while entirely deleting the addition of Rs.2,45,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without going into the merits or examining the assessment records. It held that the matter requires examination with a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessments under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were not sustainable in law as the assessment years involved were unabated. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's explanation regarding previous withdrawals as the source for cash deposits. It directed a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12, while entirely deleting the addition of Rs.2,45,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13.

The Tribunal held that the facts were identical to a previous case where a similar addition was confirmed. However, upon considering the assessee's evidence showing the impugned sum as commercial sale/purchase transactions, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stand. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the facts were identical to a previous case where a similar addition was confirmed. However, upon considering the assessee's evidence showing the impugned sum as commercial sale/purchase transactions, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stand. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessments under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were not sustainable in law as the assessment years involved were unabated. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities focused on the quantum of the claim rather than specific material evidence to deem the set-off claim as non-genuine. The disallowance of the assessee's set-off of loss was found to be without merit and was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of the enhanced compensation, following Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal distinguished the High Court rulings relied upon by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the search year was not in accordance with the law and was bad in law. The approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical, vitiating the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that remuneration received by a partner from a partnership firm is distinct from income from profession and therefore Section 44ADA, which applies to gross receipts from profession, is not applicable. However, upon a stricter interpretation and considering the specific arguments, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee under Section 44ADA.

The Tribunal held that not every quantum disallowance automatically attracts penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The case involved a subjective issue of profit re-estimation related to business turnover, which could not be covered under the penal provision.

The Tribunal held that the INR 1 crore was an advance given to M/s Vanquish and was duly received back by the assessee, thus not exigible to addition under Section 68. Regarding the INR 1.9 crore, the Tribunal found no material on record to support the AO's allegation of payment or unexplained expenditure.