ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — April 2020

The Tribunal held that since the assessee firm did not carry on any business activity, it could not be presumed to have earned income. Capital contribution from partners cannot be treated as the firm's income, and any issues with the partners' sources of investment should be addressed in their individual assessments.

The Tribunal accepted the sale consideration of Rs. 9.8 lakhs from the sale of agricultural land as an explained source. For the balance amount (lease amount), the issue was remitted to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) summarily confirmed the addition without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case and admitted additional evidence. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy and reliance on professionals. The matter was remanded to the AO for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that there was a mistake in filling the return particulars and, considering the assessee is a charitable institution, remanded the case to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO himself noted that cheque transactions were wrongly recorded as cash. Therefore, these amounts could not be taxed as unexplained cash credits. The variation in cash books also needed proper verification.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F, considering it a beneficial provision. The issue was remanded to the AO to consider the eligibility for the deduction after the assessee provides necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that by executing the Sale cum GPA, receiving full consideration, and handing over possession in 2006, the assessee had effectively transferred the property. The subsequent sale deed in 2012 by the GPA holder was not a transfer by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly verified the documents submitted by the assessee regarding share transactions. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for re-consideration on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed relevant evidence before the lower authorities, but the CIT(A) confirmed the additions due to the assessee's non-appearance. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.