Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 16 of 25
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was not valid as it lacked application of mind and was granted mechanically for multiple years. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A were quashed.
The tribunal held that the sum of Rs.80,833 was properly accounted for by the assessee with banking channel details. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,86,148 under section 115BBC, it was found that the assessee had provided all relevant details of contributors/donors and bank details, which were not controverted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- represented the assessee's withdrawal from his GPF account or his past accumulated savings. Therefore, treating the cash as unexplained was incorrect.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's business of trading cotton cloth, but noted the failure to reconcile or verify cash sales. A lump sum addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was considered appropriate as profit element on business sales, with a rider that it should not be a precedent. Regarding Section 115BBE, the Tribunal held that it applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal found that a lump sum addition of Rs.3,20,000 would be just and proper for the impugned addition, with the condition that it should not be treated as a precedent. It was also clarified that the addition would be assessed at normal business income. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions only, as the cited case law indicated its applicability only for transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans of Rs.1,95,00,000/- from M/s Shub Div Associates Pvt. Ltd. were genuine and supported by necessary evidence, hence the addition was deleted. For cash deposits of Rs.36,12,166/-, a lump sum addition of Rs.3,60,000/- (10% representing profit element) was deemed appropriate.
The tribunal noted that the approval for reopening was a mechanical one, stating "I am satisfied.....". Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of the Section 127 transfer order was a purely legal ground and admitted it for adjudication. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 127 and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's decision in the context of Section 124(3) and Delhi High Court judgments. It was held that transfers made under the proviso to Section 127(1) from one Income-tax Officer to another in the same locality are administrative in nature, passed for departmental convenience, and do not involve prejudice to the assessee. Such transfers do not necessitate recording of reasons or granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's view that transfers for coordinated investigation are sufficient reason for administrative orders under Section 127 and do not affect fundamental or legal rights. Therefore, the contention questioning the jurisdiction of the DCIT, Central Circle-30, based on the Section 127 order, was found to be without merit and liable to be rejected. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the other grounds of appeal as the primary issue of jurisdiction was addressed.
While a prima facie presumption arose in favor of the assessee that the withdrawn cash might not have been used, the assessee failed to discharge her onus to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Thus, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was made without treating it as a precedent.
The amended provisions of Section 151, applicable after 31.03.2021, required sanction from the PCCIT/CCIT, not the PCIT, for issuing a notice u/s 148 when more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. The sanction obtained was from the PCIT, which is invalid under the new regime.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging that such interest income might not be directly "derived" from eligible business under section 80P(2), followed a Supreme Court precedent to adopt the view supporting the assessee's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this substantive ground.
The lower authorities refused Section 80P deduction on interest income from term deposits, short-term deposits, and savings bank accounts, treating it as income from "other" sources. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-I vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., allowed the assessee's ground.
The Tribunal noted that the approval for reopening was mechanical and did not reflect due consideration of the reasons. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court pronouncements and High Court decisions, held that for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, were time-barred due to the non-applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the reassessment based on such a notice was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the excel sheet was a self-contained document and not in the nature of a payment or receipt. There was no corroboration of its contents by the lower authorities. Therefore, the addition made based on this excel sheet was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice was issued beyond the three-year period without the requisite sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee provided an explanation regarding agricultural lands and crop cultivation, it was not satisfactorily proven to the lower authorities. However, the possibility of cash deposits arising from crop sales and savings could not be entirely ruled out. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee could not be summarily rejected. The impugned addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal cited the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's business activity was not disputed, she failed to adequately prove the source of the impugned cash deposits as realization from sundry debtors. For justice, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, without setting a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the appropriate authority as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a regular return filer engaged in business. While the cash deposits were not fully reconciled, they were deemed to represent business turnover. A further Gross Profit (GP) addition of 8% was made on these deposits. Regarding Section 115BBE, the Tribunal held it applies only to transactions after April 1, 2017, directing assessment under normal provisions for earlier periods.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 15,00,000 in March/April 2016, followed by deposits of Rs. 12,90,000 during demonetization, suggesting re-deposits of earlier withdrawals. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was deemed appropriate, not as a precedent, providing the assessee relief of Rs. 11,90,000. For assessment under Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism, and the non-compliance with procedural requirements in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that technical aspects should yield to substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the larger interest of justice and the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings. The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate order lacked effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee appears to be deriving regular business income. While the exact source of the cash deposits was not fully verified, it was deemed appropriate to estimate a lump sum Gross Profit (GP) at 8% on these deposits. Furthermore, it was clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, not income from other sources. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in Pawan Kumar Vs. PCIT.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared a total turnover of Rs.1,68,45,567/-, including GST. It was presumed that cash deposits formed part of cash sales and turnover. Thus, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that in the larger interest of justice, the matter should be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities of hearing at their own risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BAC(5) read with its proviso does not apply to cases of non-business income. The assessee's revised return was validly filed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the lack of a valid approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act. The approval was deemed mechanical and insufficient, vitiating the entire reopening process.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities themselves had treated the assessee as an accommodation entry provider in a preceding assessment year. To meet the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the assessee to be assessed at a rate of 1% for its credits and deposits, maintaining judicial consistency but with a rider that it would not be treated as a precedent. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies only to transactions done on or after 01.04.2017, and the assessee is to be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT, which states that employee contributions to ESI/PF must be credited on or before the statutory due date, not the return filing due date.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities for hearing at their risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not summarily reject the assessee's explanation reconciling cash deposits with business sales. However, the assessee had not fully proved the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a full inquiry into the donations made by the assessee to other educational trusts. The CIT(E) incorrectly invoked Section 263 as there was no lack of inquiry and the donations were not found to be not genuine.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully verify all corresponding entries, the entire amount of Rs. 21,25,000 could not be added as unexplained under sections 68/69A of the Act. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate and just in the given facts, not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. It was held that communication gaps could not be ruled out, and restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would serve the larger interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out. In the larger interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made under section 147.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided extensive documentary evidence for the purchases, including GST details, bank payments, and evidence of goods being recorded and sold. The lower authorities failed to adequately examine this evidence. The proprietor of the supplier entity denied knowledge of the transaction. The Tribunal found that the books of accounts were not explicitly rejected.
The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on information not pertaining to the assessee, lacking any tangible material to form the basis of the impugned reopening. Therefore, the reopening was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 185 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, emphasized that procedural technicalities should yield to the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed explained the reasons for the delay, and the Departmental Representative could not dispute this. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The taxpayer was directed to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT, which states that employee contributions to ESI/PF must be credited on or before the statutory due date, not the return filing due date.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. Considering the larger interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This will be done within three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 and 09/2024. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing.