ITAT Guwahati Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to prove the source of the cash deposits and eligibility for exemption under section 10(26). The Trade License produced by the assessee was for AY 2018-19, not the relevant AY 2017-18, thus failing to substantiate the claim for the impugned year. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO, concluding that the assessee failed to explain the source of her cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by remanding the matter to the AO, as Section 251(1)(a) does not permit such remand. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to quantify relief and consider fresh evidence. The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that it was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection on the same ground and refrained from deciding the merits of the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the VSVS 2024 Scheme. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee the liberty to file a miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if they are unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 for any reason.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had enhanced the income without considering the assessee's submissions and that the treatment of sales and stock was not in consonance with accounting principles. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment under Section 153C was justified due to incriminating material found, the addition itself was not based on such material. The Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded on information already on record, not on the seized documents.

The Tribunal held that additions based on pending criminal proceedings without final court findings were unjustified. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to him to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal held that additions based on pending criminal proceedings without final court findings were unjustified. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to him to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal held that while Section 69C might not be the most appropriate provision, the disallowance was partly justified as primary evidence for the expenditure was not produced. Therefore, 10% of the disallowed amount was sustained as an addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not verifying the source of cash deposits and relying on findings from a different assessment year. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the source of cash deposits and the applicability of Section 10(26) exemption. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal. It noted that an appeal against a Section 143(1) intimation is permissible, and since the rectification application was rejected, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act prohibits co-operative banks from claiming the benefit of Section 80P(2)(d). Since the Tripura State Co-operative Bank is considered a co-operative bank doing banking business, the interest income earned from it is not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits after giving a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal. It noted that an appeal against a Section 143(1) intimation is permissible, and since the rectification application was rejected, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had, in fact, properly filed the necessary documents before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Addl/JCIT(A), confirming that the assessee had filed the Audit Report in Form 10B within the extended due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Addl/JCIT(A)'s order allowing the exemption under section 11 and therefore dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of being a Tribal person eligible for Section 10(26) exemption and that Lushai Engineers is a proprietary concern. Due to the assessee's lack of awareness and non-participation, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present evidence and substantiate claims. The CIT(A) order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had, in fact, properly filed the necessary documents before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is instructed to submit the correct Audit Reports and a certificate from the Tax Auditor explaining the error. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with the law after providing the assessee a fair hearing, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had, in fact, submitted relevant documentary evidence to the AO which was overlooked by the lower authorities. As the books of account were also not rejected, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh (de novo) adjudication, directing them to consider all documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found an apparent error in the AO's assessment regarding a loan from Shanti Kumar Jain, where Rs.4.00 crore was mistakenly recorded instead of Rs.4.00 lakh, leading to the deletion of Rs.3.96 crore from the addition. For the remaining unsecured loans of Rs.3,75,74,960/-, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh verification as the details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were not clearly discernible from the lower orders. The Tribunal also directed the rectification of the AO's mistake in showing Nil returned income despite the assessee having declared a loss.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is instructed to submit the correct Audit Reports and a certificate from the Tax Auditor explaining the error. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with the law after providing the assessee a fair hearing, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's income was exempt from tax under Section 10(26), leading to a reasonable belief that there were no tax implications for the transaction. Applying Section 273B, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 07/2024, issued on the same day as the rejection order, extended the due date for Form 10AB applications until 30.06.2024. Considering this, the Tribunal found no delay in the assessee's filing and set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, remanding the matter for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, referencing Supreme Court and High Court judgments on condonation and finding that proper notices were not served as per Section 282(1) of the IT Act and Rule 127(1) of the IT Rules. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring reasonable opportunities for the assessee.

The Tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment (de novo) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding the Section 10(26) exemption claim, which had not been submitted to the lower authorities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded both appeals back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a proper investigation into the assessee's accounts. The AO is directed to assess the true and correct income after providing the assessee adequate opportunity, expecting cooperation from the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded both appeals back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a proper investigation into the assessee's accounts. The AO is directed to assess the true and correct income after providing the assessee adequate opportunity, expecting cooperation from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is an educational institution eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. The cash deposits were presumed to be out of student fees and not business receipts.