Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were bad in law as the Assessing Officer had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 149(1)(b) and that the sanction granted under Section 151 was mechanical, indicating a non-application of mind by the approving authority.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were bad in law as the conditions of Section 149(1)(b) were not fulfilled and the sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed pursuant to these notices were also vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-20 was invalid and liable to be quashed. This was because a fresh notice dated November 14, 2024, was issued after an earlier notice dated March 18, 2023, was dropped by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO could not initiate fresh proceedings under Section 147/148 based on the same material and facts after the earlier proceedings were dropped, especially when the reasons for dropping were not beyond the AO's control. The Tribunal noted that the AO had dropped the earlier proceedings by accepting the assessee's return of income without scrutiny, as indicated by the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). In the absence of fresh material or a change in facts, reinitiating proceedings via a second notice under Section 148 was not permissible. Consequently, the notice dated November 14, 2024, was held invalid on this ground alone. The Tribunal ordered accordingly. The judgment implies that similar issues concerning the validity of Section 148 notices were considered for other AYs, leading to the allowance of all appeals.
The Tribunal noted that grounds 1 and 2 were general and no arguments were advanced by the assessee's counsel, thus not requiring specific adjudication. Regarding grounds 2 to 7, which challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Section 148 notice, the assessee argued that the material seized from the employee's laptop at his residence did not satisfy the conditions for invoking Section 148, specifically Explanation 2(iv), as it was not seized from the assessee's possession. The assessee also contended that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and obtain prior approval from the Principal CIT before issuing the notice. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reliance on Supreme Court judgments regarding procedural compliance. The judgment does not record the revenue's arguments on these points. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention that the sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically. The specific finding on the addition of Rs. 7,35,052/- is not detailed in the provided excerpt, other than the CIT(A) having sustained an addition of Rs. 0.07 lakhs and given relief of Rs. 0.20 lakhs. The operative directions are not fully discernible from the excerpt, but the appeals are filed against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal addressed each ground of appeal. For Ground 1, regarding the limitation period, the Tribunal noted the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court and directed the AO to give effect to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, keeping the issue open. For Ground 2, concerning the disallowance of section 80IA deduction, the Tribunal noted that the assessee executed projects under sub-contract and that this issue was covered by the Tribunal's own decisions for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that the AO/DRP erred in disallowing the claim and ordered accordingly. For Grounds 3 and 4, concerning transfer pricing adjustments, the Tribunal found that the transactions were back-to-back contracts where the price from the government was passed on to the assessee without mark-up. The Tribunal held that the price received by the assessee from the AE was at arm's length and that the TPO's approach of re-allocating costs and re-determining financial results was beyond the scope of transfer pricing provisions. The rejection of the assessee's benchmarking under the CUP method and adoption of 'Another Method' by the TPO was deemed arbitrary and unjustified. The additions made on account of TP adjustment were held unsustainable and liable for deletion. For Ground 5, regarding credit under section 115JAA, since it was a fresh ground not raised before the DRP, the AO was directed to consider the claim as per law. For Ground 6, regarding incorrect TDS credit, also a fresh ground, the AO was directed to verify and examine the claim. Ground 7, regarding interest under sections 234A and 234B, was noted as mandatory and consequential. Ground 8 was general and not adjudicated. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved through MAP. With no objection from the Revenue, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal deemed the issue to be reconciliatory and verification-intensive. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for a de novo examination, instructing to reconcile turnover between financial statements and GST returns for F.Y. 2019-20 and F.Y. 2020-21, verify USD-denominated invoices, and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that once a regular assessment under Section 143(3) is completed, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) merges with it and loses its independent existence. Since the Assessing Officer had already allowed the deduction in the Section 143(3) assessment, the CPC's adjustment under Section 143(1) and the FAA's order upholding it could not be sustained. Thus, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. It further held that the order of the CIT(E) lacked specific findings and directed a remand for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the 72-day delay for its own filing due to the CA's health issues. For the CIT(A) appeal, the ITAT confirmed that notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email ID, thereby condoning the 1060-day delay, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The second appeal, concerning a penalty, was also allowed for statistical purposes as the issues were identical.
The ITAT condoned the 72-day delay for its own filing due to the CA's health issues. For the CIT(A) appeal, the ITAT confirmed that notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email ID, thereby condoning the 1060-day delay, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The second appeal, concerning a penalty, was also allowed for statistical purposes as the issues were identical.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed paid the cost of Rs. 2,000/- within the stipulated period as per the evidence produced. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of cost within the stipulated time, which was found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the proceedings, including repeated failures to appear before the Tribunal. It found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders, as the statutory defaults were admitted and unexplained. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT (Exemption) failed to verify the actual date of commencement of the assessee's activities, which is crucial for determining the correct limitation period for filing applications. It also noted that a CBDT Circular cited by the CIT was not relevant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration and proper verification of the commencement date to ascertain the correct limitation period for the applications.
The Tribunal held that the deposit of Rs. 14,00,000/- was explainable due to premature encashment of an FDR, and directed its deletion. Regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 13,62,500/- (family settlement), the Tribunal found the evidence (affidavits) insufficient and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee another opportunity to furnish necessary evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT (Exemption) failed to verify the actual date of commencement of the assessee's activities, which is crucial for determining the correct limitation period for filing applications. It also noted that a CBDT Circular cited by the CIT was not relevant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration and proper verification of the commencement date to ascertain the correct limitation period for the applications.
The Tribunal held that genuine claims should not be rejected on mere technicalities, finding the FAA's dismissal based on technical merger unjustified. It determined that the assessee's claims regarding brought forward losses, dividend exemption, and employee contribution disallowance pertain to the merits and require factual verification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation due to the significant and unexplained delay. Furthermore, the assessee failed to respond to notices issued by both the Tribunal and the CIT(A), indicating a lack of representation.
The Tribunal condoned the 170-day delay, accepting the assessee's explanation of delayed knowledge of the CIT(A) order. It ruled that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits from prior bank withdrawals, which were not disputed by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's pension income was below the taxable limit and that the demonetization context supported the deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause. It then set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order, remanding the matter back for reconsideration of the Section 12AB registration application, instructing to consider all relevant facts and provide an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the potential for gross injustice due to the inflated income assessment caused by technical glitches. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the claimed delay, particularly regarding the disputed date of service of the assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay issue after providing the assessee a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the provision for periodic maintenance was not allowable as it was a mere provision without incurred expenditure. However, regarding excess depreciation, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and directed the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by upholding the ex-parte penalty without considering the assessee's valid contentions regarding improper service of notices and the pending appeal against the assessment order. It held that the Assessing Officer ought to have kept the penalty proceedings in abeyance as per Section 275 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for reconsideration of the penalty after the outcome of the appeal against the assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the potential for gross injustice due to the inflated income assessment caused by technical glitches. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceedings before lower authorities were ex parte due to the assessee's exceptional circumstances. Consequently, all appeals, encompassing quantum additions and related penalties, were set aside and remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence and pass a speaking order in accordance with law for all issues.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceedings before lower authorities were ex parte due to the assessee's exceptional circumstances. Consequently, all appeals, encompassing quantum additions and related penalties, were set aside and remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence and pass a speaking order in accordance with law for all issues.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceedings before lower authorities were ex parte due to the assessee's exceptional circumstances. Consequently, all appeals, encompassing quantum additions and related penalties, were set aside and remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence and pass a speaking order in accordance with law for all issues.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration for agricultural land, even if received in cash, falls within the ambit of Section 269SS. The assessee's claim of bonafide belief was rejected as they were aware of tax laws.
The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, which is not a capital asset and is exempt from tax, does not fall under the ambit of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee's profit margin, after considering working capital adjustments, remains higher than the arm's length margin of comparables, no separate addition for interest on receivables is warranted. It also held that if working capital adjustment is granted, separate benchmarking of interest on receivables is not required.
The Tribunal held that making a claim for weighted deduction based on a legitimate expectation, even if subsequently rejected for non-submission of Form-3CL, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty.
The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, which is not a capital asset and is exempt from tax, does not fall under the ambit of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry and the assessee had not earned any exempt income. Therefore, disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable, and the revision order was set aside.
The tribunal found the CIT(Exemptions)'s rejection order to be non-speaking and arbitrary, as it failed to specify the missing information or provide reasoned findings on the charitable nature of the trust's activities despite detailed submissions. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A) to be bona fide. Despite the assessee's prior non-compliance at both AO and CIT(A) levels, the Tribunal, upholding natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This allows the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case and evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the Assessing Officer had disbelieved the assessee's evidence (VRO certificate and farmer list) based merely on general observations and failed to bring further evidence to disprove the agricultural activity. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reasons provided for the inordinate delay were not convincing and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause'. The assessee's casual approach and negligence were noted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and a liberal approach. It then remitted the issue of PF/ESI contribution payment dates back to the Assessing Officer for verification, stating that if payments were made on time, the addition should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the High Court had quashed the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148, the subsequent reassessment order was unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceedings before lower authorities were ex parte due to the assessee's exceptional circumstances. Consequently, all appeals, encompassing quantum additions and related penalties, were set aside and remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence and pass a speaking order in accordance with law for all issues.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period, which the Supreme Court has excluded for limitation purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the 108-day delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-decide the issue afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that she was merely a consenting party as a legal heir to avoid litigation needs verification. While the sale deed received the entire consideration by parties Sl. 1 to 12, the assessee's inclusion as a vendor needs to be examined against the original partition deed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (cash book) from the assessee, noting a factual discrepancy in the lower authorities' orders regarding the bank account and the actual cash deposit amount. Consequently, it set aside both the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits and the disallowance of expenditure to the file of the AO for fresh verification, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment proceedings were largely ex-parte, and the lower authorities failed to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing or share the information forming the basis of the additions. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, with directions to provide the assessee a due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and liable to be quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the assessee filed a return in response to a Section 148 notice. This failure was not cured by Section 292BB.
The Tribunal held that the issue of prior period expenses and non-reconciliation of income with Form 26AS require factual verification by the AO. The additional ground regarding the validity of the assessment order due to limitation was kept open pending the Supreme Court's decision.