Loading ITAT cases…
441 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the addition made solely on the basis of third-party statements, without confronting the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination, was against the spirit of Section 153C. The Tribunal noted the lack of corroborating evidence beyond the third-party statements and a paper found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings for AY 2021-22 were initiated without complying with the provisions of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the assessee on 24.05.2022, which falls in the Financial Year 2022-23, relevant to AY 2023-24. As per the first proviso to Section 153C(1), the date of search should be construed from the date when satisfaction is recorded by the AO of the assessee. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) and followed by the Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the six assessment years preceding the search year (AY 2023-24) for initiating proceedings under Section 153C would be AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23. Therefore, the assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been completed by issuing a notice under Section 153C, not under Section 143(2). The Tribunal quashed the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) by issuing notice under Section 143(2) without initiating proceedings under Section 153C, holding it to be bad in law. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 were allowed. Other grounds became academic and were not adjudicated. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Rs. 23 crores was not part of the sale consideration but related to a failed renovation agreement. Documents found during the search were presumed to be true and corroborated the assessee's stand.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not examine the assessee's contentions regarding the source of income and utilization of services in the proper perspective. The Tribunal held that the chargeability to tax depends on the proper appreciation of evidence and directed a de novo reassessment by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before it was filed 52 days late, but condoned the delay upon being shown sufficient cause by the assessee. It was an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the NFAC, the assessee failed to file submissions and did not appear before the NFAC after filing the appeal, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims and decide the issue on merits. The assessee was also directed to appear before the NFAC and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the merits of the grounds of appeal as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal acknowledged the contentions raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal regarding the lack of proper opportunity of being heard. Specifically, the short interval between the show cause notice and the order, and the alleged non-service of the Section 148 notice were noted. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not participated in the proceedings before the NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims and then decide the issues afresh based on the facts and applicable law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the AO and cooperate with the proceedings. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of whether the Section 148 notice was served was not definitively decided, but the matter was remanded for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the loans were genuine, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same lenders. Since the loans were genuine, the addition made by the AO and any related commission or interest disallowance were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had invalidly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C due to a consolidated and defective satisfaction note, which was not specific to the assessee or the assessment year. The assessment proceedings were declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the file of the PCIT for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the PCIT for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal held that the assessments for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were rightly quashed by the CIT(A) as they fell outside the prescribed block period. Furthermore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C by the Assessing Officer was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that while the CIT(E) had given the assessee opportunities, for the sake of complete justice, one more opportunity should be granted to file the necessary information for registration. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT(E) decided the issue ex parte. In the interest of justice and fairplay, the appeal was restored to the file of the PCIT(E) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Rs. 23 crores was not part of the sale consideration but related to a failed renovation agreement. Documents found during the search were presumed to be true and corroborated the assessee's stand.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Rs. 23 crores was not part of the sale consideration but related to a failed renovation agreement. Documents found during the search were presumed to be true and corroborated the assessee's stand.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to discharge the primary onus regarding the genuineness of transactions and loans. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the requisite notices were not served upon the assessee as per the prescribed rules and procedure. The Tribunal noted the Revenue's admission that the assessment order was not uploaded through the e-filing portal due to technical errors, and the claim of service through speed post was not substantiated with proof of tracking records. Citing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal (supra) and the provisions of Section 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of the Rules, the Tribunal concluded that there was a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the passing of the assessment order and subsequent proceedings related to the demand raised were deemed bad in law and liable to be quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on these terms. The issue regarding the addition of unexplained money and the status of assessment was rendered infructuous due to the quashing of the assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C by the AO was flawed as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee. The excel sheet was considered a 'dumb document' lacking evidentiary value, and the satisfaction note was generic. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Hazir Johri software was seized from JBL, not the assessee, and contained transactions of various unrelated parties. Without corroborative evidence or cross-examination of witnesses, the additions based on this data were not sustainable. Previous similar cases involving JBL were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed sales of food grains through a commission agent, documentary evidence was lacking. However, the addition made by the AO was on the higher side, especially since the sale entries were recorded in audited books and transactions were through banking channels.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed without proper inquiry or investigation into the alleged cash payment for property, especially when the Faceless AO had requested legible copies of the investigation wing's material. The Tribunal found no error in the PCIT's direction to the AO to re-examine the records.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's husband has a good salary and that the assessee, being a housewife, may accumulate cash for purchases. While a portion of the cash (Rs. 9,54,700/-) was accepted as explained from accumulated withdrawals, the remaining amount was considered. The Tribunal estimated an additional Rs. 5 lakhs as acceptable withdrawal, confirming the rest of the amount.
The Tribunal held that while filing Form 10CCB is a requirement, it is directory in nature. Given the assessee is a recognized startup and eligible for the deduction, the non-filing of the form due to its unsuitability for Section 80IAC claims should not lead to denial.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C for Assessment Year 2013-14 was issued beyond the ten-year block period, making the assessment proceedings void ab initio and beyond limitation. The satisfaction notes were recorded on 26.10.2022 and 10.11.2022, which fell in FY 2022-23.
The Tribunal held that Section 167B of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes MMR, is not applicable to the assessee, a public charitable trust, as the beneficiaries' shares are not indeterminate. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 320/1982, which clarifies that tax should be applied at normal rates for such trusts.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already allowed the appeal against both additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal found no valid reason for the assessee to file an appeal before it on these grounds.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not ascertain whether the payees had paid the tax directly. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the payment of taxes by the payees and re-adjudicate the assessee's status as an assessee-in-default.
The Revenue's representative (DR) had no objection to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal considered the request and, in the absence of any objection from the DR, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed additional evidences during appellate proceedings, but these were not admitted by the CIT(A) as they were not submitted during assessment proceedings without sufficient cause. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment to allow the assessee to furnish documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed Form 9A and Form 10B within the prescribed timelines, and the AO had processed a revised return dated 30.12.2023 as the original return, denying the benefit of Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal considered the delay in filing Form 10B as procedural and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue of benefit claimed under Sections 11 and 12.
The tribunal noted that the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove the source of withdrawals. However, in the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,20,000/- was deemed appropriate, and the assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions, as that section applied only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee is in the business of constructing apartments and cash turnover in such unorganized sectors is possible, the specific purchase transaction was questioned. Considering various judicial precedents with divergent views, the Tribunal decided to allow a lump sum disallowance.
The appeal is partly allowed. The tribunal held that while the assessee failed to fully verify the source of Rs.20,00,000 seized cash, the possibility of cash in hand and turnover in an unorganized business could not be ruled out. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal, citing the decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that technical aspects should not impede substantial justice. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO's action in adopting stamp duty value for cost of construction without referring to DVO was contrary to legal provisions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided by the CIT(A) without the assessee filing submissions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to explain the cash deposits as cash sales, there was an abnormal jump in deposits compared to the preceding year. However, the Revenue's endeavor to disbelieve the explanation was also not fully justified. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lump-sum addition of Rs. 8 lakh.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 144 without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. In the interest of natural justice, the issue of exemption u/s 54 was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The CIT(A) found the disallowance of the cost of improvements made by the AO as unjustified, considering the credible details of improvement costs furnished by the assessee, amounting to Rs. 79,97,600/- (without indexation) from 1982-83 to 1993-94. The CIT(A) also considered the indexed cost of acquisition and improvements, concluding that the AO's addition artificially inflated the taxable amount.
The Assessing Officer reassessed the income, but no addition was made for the year under consideration, leaving the issue of cash received for taxation in the year the project is completed. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 153C was vitiated because the prior approval obtained under section 153D from the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. The approval was sought and granted as a common approval for multiple assessment years, including the current one, and the specific assessment year 2015-16 was missing from the approval communication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed a rejoinder against the remand report submitted by the AO concerning additional evidence. The assessee expressed a desire to file objections against this remand report. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate with the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the legality of the assessment orders, as the matter was remanded for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was passed ex-parte and lacked substantive adjudication. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and the assessee being an NRI, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable. It noted that the AO had issued show cause notices, conducted enquiries, and applied his mind to the issues. The PCIT failed to point out any specific defects or elaborate on the nature of the enquiry that the AO should have conducted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on previous orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The facts for the current assessment years were identical to the previous ones, and no new material was presented by the Revenue. The Tribunal therefore found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in proceedings, and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded within a reasonable time and was based on seized material that directly implicated the assessee. The objection regarding the delay and procedural lapses were dismissed. The Tribunal also found that the assessee failed to provide evidence of delivery of goods and genuineness of purchases, supporting the AO's addition. The approval under Section 153D was also found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not identify any defect in the assessee's sales, stock, purchase registers, or cash book. The reliance on employee statements recorded much later was deemed unjust. The Tribunal found no substantive evidence to doubt the cash sales, which were supported by audited books and stock records.
The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and the findings of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO could not identify any defects in the sales register, stock register, or cash book prepared as of the survey date or demonetization date. The CIT(A) was satisfied with the assessee's explanation, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.