Loading ITAT cases…
296 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illiteracy, lack of proper communication, and the liberal approach advocated by the Supreme Court in *Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 83 (SC)*. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted out of email communication and no physical notice was served. On the merits, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and a verbatim reproduction of the AO's observations, without independent findings or affording an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to address the grounds of appeal and did not provide a speaking order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-decision with a direction to pass a speaking and reasoned order, afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and consider the assessee's challenge to the AO's jurisdiction under section 144. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 680 days in filing the appeal, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition under Section 69A because the assessee had not declared any cash in hand in the income tax returns for the relevant assessment years and had not provided full details of the HUF accounts and cash flow statements. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the absence of the assessee's representation. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the complete details and evidence filed by the assessee and provide a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order. The issue of whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice was implicitly addressed by remanding the case for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity. The specific issue of the addition under Section 69A was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's son, Mr. N. Lakshmikanth, had admitted to transferring Rs. 30 lakhs to his father on March 15, 2017, from his bank account. This amount was sourced from a credit of Rs. 35 lakhs received via RTGS from 'AIM DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS-N' on March 14, 2017. The Tribunal reasoned that the explanation of the son regarding the source of the amount paid to the assessee was substantiated because the Rs. 30 lakhs was sourced from his bank account, which had a substantial credit the day before the transfer. Crucially, the Tribunal pointed out that the '1st Proviso' to Section 68, which requires an explanation for the source of credit, was introduced only from April 1, 2023, and was not applicable to AY 2017-18. Therefore, the AO could not have looked into the 'source of source' for the Rs. 35 lakhs. The Tribunal also questioned the applicability of Section 69A, stating that a credit entry in a bank account does not fall within the definition of 'money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article' as contemplated by Section 69A. The addition, if any, should have been considered under Section 69. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was passed contrary to Section 151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification No. 18/2022, which mandates prior approval for issuing notice under Section 148. The AO failed to obtain such approval, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 55 lacs under Section 68 and the disallowance of the cost of improvement claim were quashed. The Tribunal found that the AO had made the addition under Section 68 in the final assessment order, despite the DRP directing it to be assessed under Section 69. Furthermore, the AO did not give effect to the DRP's direction regarding the source of funds. The Tribunal also noted that the DRP had rejected the assessee's claims regarding foreign income and ex-husband's capital gains on the ground that they were not part of the variations proposed in the draft assessment order. However, since the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the lack of proper approval under Section 151A, these issues were not adjudicated on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the issue regarding the cost of improvement claim on merits due to the quashing of the assessment order.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be denied merely because of a delay in filing Form-67. The Tribunal noted that the fact of payment of foreign tax was not in dispute. It referred to a series of its own decisions, including Smt. Sonali Verma, Shri Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, and Shri Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, which consistently held that denial of FTC solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form-67 is not justified, especially when the form was available before the processing authority. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT for the principle of following precedents in favour of the assessee in case of divergent views. The Tribunal observed that Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules has been amended to allow filing of Form-67 on or before the end of the Assessment Year, addressing this anomaly. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC claim to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment proceedings are dismissed. The Tribunal found that the subsequent notice dated 26.07.2022 was issued within the surviving period and rejected the assessee's contentions regarding procedural infirmities in the issuance of the notice and assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. Regarding the addition on merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had specifically denied making the investment and claimed the demat account was operated by his employer's associates. The Tribunal found that the matter required deeper factual verification concerning the underlying documentary evidence, such as demat account records, contract notes, bank statements, and details of fund sources and transfers. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue relating to the addition of Rs. 78,01,964/- under Section 69 of the Act to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for necessary verification and a speaking order, while affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the assessee's explanation or the sustainability of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial sworn statement under Section 131 of the Act on 24.10.2018 categorically admitted that the cash of Rs. 60 lakhs belonged to him and was to be deposited in his bank account. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals). It was observed that the assessee never claimed the cash belonged to Srinivas Tiwari (HUF) during the assessment or first appellate proceedings, raising this claim for the first time in the set-aside proceedings, which was considered an afterthought. The Tribunal found the explanation of the source of cash, including bank withdrawals, realization from sundry debtors, and business advances, to be untenable. Specifically, no cash book was produced to show withdrawn cash was retained physically, and debtor confirmations lacked supporting documents like sale invoices or stock details. The debtors also failed to respond to summons. The VAT and ICICI Bank certificates only established M/s Raghvendra Traders as an HUF concern but did not prove ownership of the specific seized cash. Therefore, the assessee failed to discharge the onus of satisfactorily explaining the nature and source of the cash. The AO was justified in treating the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A, and the CIT(Appeals) was justified in sustaining the addition. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. The primary reason for this decision was the admitted fact that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, despite the assessee having filed a return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The Tribunal, relying on a host of judicial pronouncements including those from the Supreme Court and various High Courts (e.g., Amec Foster Wheeler Iberia SLU-India Project Office vs DCIT, CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad, PCIT v. S.G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., PCIT v. Dart Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon), emphasized that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for framing an assessment after a return is filed in response to a section 148 notice. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of this notice goes to the validity of the reassessment proceedings and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional ground. Other grounds, including the validity of the section 148 notice and the merits of the additions, were not adjudicated upon and were left open.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to admit additional evidence, namely Form 26AS and bank statements, under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The assessee contended that its previous tax consultant failed to inform it of notices, leading to its inability to participate effectively. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that the additional evidence would have a direct bearing on explaining the discrepancies in contract receipts and the nature/source of transactions. As these documents were not before the lower authorities and required factual verification, the Tribunal admitted them under Rule 29. The Tribunal further found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions in the absence of this documentary evidence. In the interest of justice and to determine the correct taxable income, the issues relating to the additions were restored to the AO's file for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, allow it to furnish further documents/explanations, and then consider the additional evidence and submissions on merits to determine the correct income for AY 2021-22. The grounds concerning the validity of the notice under Section 143(2), principles of natural justice, and penalty proceedings were not explicitly decided as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that where an assessee is completely debt-free and does not incur any interest cost on borrowed funds, no separate transfer pricing adjustment towards notional interest on outstanding trade receivables is warranted, following the decision in Kore AI Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, which in turn relied on decisions of the Chennai and Delhi Benches, ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the claim of being debt-free requires factual verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification. If found to be debt-free, the AO is directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,46,83,001/-. Other grounds were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal without affording an opportunity to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided reasons of ill-health and financial hardship in Form-35. In the interest of justice, the CIT(A) ought to have provided an opportunity for the assessee to prove these claims, rather than dismissing the appeal solely on limitation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, emphasizing a justice-oriented and liberal approach to condonation of delay applications. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding the delay. If the CIT(A) condones the delay, he is to proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving that to the CIT(A) to decide.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return on time was bona fide due to COVID-related duties. Since the returned income was accepted without additions and substantial TDS was deducted, the penalty was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found substantial force in the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee needed to substantiate its claim of unconsumed challans with documentary evidence. However, since the assessee undertook to furnish complete details, copies of challans, and reconciliation before the AO/TDS CPC, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the claim, and the assessee must provide all particulars, including challan copies, payment dates, TDS liability, utilization details, and reconciliation. The AO will then determine the credit available and recompute the demand under section 201(1A) and the consequential interest under section 220(2). Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal also directed the assessee to furnish complete particulars of payees, payments, and evidence of tax payment by payees to the AO/TDS CPC for determination of interest under section 201(1A) in accordance with law, emphasizing that claims must be substantiated with documentary evidence. The Tribunal clarified it had not expressed a final view on the factual correctness of the claims.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and the approval for reassessment were in accordance with the law, rejecting the assessee's challenges to the validity of the sanction and approval.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 of the Act, dated 06/04/2022, was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that as per the 'first proviso' to section 149 of the Act, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, a notice under section 148 for AY 2015-16 could not have been issued after 31/03/2022. The Tribunal agreed that the period of limitation prescribed under the pre-amended section 149(1)(b) was the relevant period, and the notice dated 06/04/2022 was issued beyond this period. The Tribunal further concurred that the fifth and sixth provisos to section 149(1) (post-amended) cannot be read into to extend the limitation period for the first proviso, which acts as a restriction. Relying on the judgments in Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited and Godrej Industries Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the notice was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 28/12/2023, based on this invalid notice, was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on other contentions raised by the assessee, leaving them open.
The Tribunal found substantial force in the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee needed to substantiate its claim of unconsumed challans with documentary evidence. However, since the assessee undertook to furnish complete details, copies of challans, and reconciliation before the AO/TDS CPC, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the claim, and the assessee must provide all particulars, including challan copies, payment dates, TDS liability, utilization details, and reconciliation. The AO will then determine the credit available and recompute the demand under section 201(1A) and the consequential interest under section 220(2). Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal also directed the assessee to furnish complete particulars of payees, payments, and evidence of tax payment by payees to the AO/TDS CPC for determination of interest under section 201(1A) in accordance with law, emphasizing that claims must be substantiated with documentary evidence. The Tribunal clarified it had not expressed a final view on the factual correctness of the claims.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and the approval for reassessment were valid. The grounds challenging the sanction and approval were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal without deciding the assessee's application filed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence. The CIT(A)'s order did not mention whether the application was accepted or rejected, and its observations regarding the lack of evidence contradicted the documents claimed to have been filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-decide the appeal after considering the application under Rule 46A and disposing of it with a speaking order, either admitting or rejecting the additional evidence. The Tribunal also refrained from deciding the other grounds of appeal and the additional ground concerning Section 115BBE, directing the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate them afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal concerning the validity of the notice under Section 148 beyond 6 years, citing the judgment in National Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. CIT. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148 dated 20/04/2022 was barred by limitation as per the mandate of the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Godrej Industries Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) extend the period of limitation for issuing notices under Section 148, but the first proviso acts as a restriction on issuing notices for assessment years up to 2021-22 beyond a certain date. If a notice is not within the time prescribed by the first proviso, it cannot be extended by the fifth or sixth proviso. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order passed by the AO were quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating other contentions raised by the assessee, leaving them open. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 29,66,619/- claimed to belong to M/s SVS Projects India Private Limited. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 292C(1) to rebut the presumption that the seized cash belonged to him. The assessee did not provide cogent documentary evidence to establish the source of this amount, and the reliance on the judgment in Pr. CIT (Central)-2 vs. M/s Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was found to be distinguishable on facts. The Tribunal also upheld the addition of Rs. 23,63,497/- claimed by Smt. B. Vijayakumari. The Tribunal noted that the assessee never stated in his Section 132(4) statements that any part of the cash belonged to his wife, and the subsequent claim raised by her, though supported by a confirmation, lacked credible documentary evidence such as cash withdrawals or other proof of availability of funds. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s view that this unsubstantiated claim could not be accepted. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 63,35,316/- sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld. The issue regarding the approval under Section 148B was not explicitly decided but was implicitly rejected by upholding the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee as per the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27/04/2022, was barred by limitation as per the mandate of the 'first proviso' to Section 149 of the Act, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO based on this notice was also unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which clarified that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) extend the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 148, but they do not override the restriction imposed by the first proviso. The first proviso acts as an exception, restricting notices for assessment years up to 2021-22 from being issued beyond a certain date. Since the notice in this case was beyond the period prescribed by the first proviso, it was invalid, and the subsequent provisos could not extend this restriction. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on other contentions raised by the assessee, leaving them open.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 30.01.2020 was barred by limitation and therefore quashed. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that Section 144C was wholly inapplicable to AY 2007-08, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that Section 144C was attracted if the variation was proposed on or after 01.10.2009, and the draft assessment order was passed on 21.12.2010. However, the Tribunal found that the fresh proceedings initiated pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 08.07.2013 were governed by Section 153(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the limitation should commence from 03.04.2017, holding that the subsequent internal movement of the order within the department could not postpone the statutory period of limitation, relying on principles from Sunshine Capital Ltd. v. DCIT and Lakhpatrai Agarwal v. CIT. The Tribunal noted that the department's own reassessment order dated 30.06.2014 indicated awareness of the Tribunal's order in FY 2013-14. Even with the benefit of the extended two-year period under the fourth proviso to Section 153(2A), the statutory period expired on 31.03.2016. Consequently, the DRP's order, TPO's order, and the final assessment order were passed after the expiry of the limitation period. As the assessment order was quashed on the ground of limitation, the Tribunal refrained from dealing with the other grounds on the merits of the transfer pricing adjustment, leaving them open.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned document seized from a third party, without corroborative evidence, cannot be considered incriminating material for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Therefore, the proceedings and the assessment order are not sustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the condonation of delay and the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were not sustainable because the AO had not recorded the requisite satisfaction in the assessment order before initiating such proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay. The assessee's consistent non-compliance at assessment, first appellate, and tribunal stages demonstrated negligence and inaction, not circumstances beyond their control.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost, admitted additional evidence, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the matter required further verification. While the AO's own observations in a subsequent assessment order (under Section 147 r.w. Section 144B) suggested the assessee was acting as an agent for vegetable sales at Bowenpally Vegetable Market Yard, receiving commission at 4% on sale proceeds, the absence of irrefutable documentary evidence like a license or market committee receipts to conclusively establish his status as a kachha arhtia necessitated further inquiry. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee could substantiate his claim of being a kachha arhtia and not undertaking any purchase or sale on his own account, then, as per CBDT Circular No. 452, he would not be obligated to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB and consequently, the penalty under Section 271B would not be sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO for carrying out necessary verification and re-deciding the issue, affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalty was not confirmed or deleted but remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the entire sale consideration for the land was already assessed in the hands of another entity, Trinity Infraventures Limited. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not independently examining the evidence and recording specific findings on merits. The AO's remark that evidence 'may be accepted' did not equate to acceptance of the assessee's explanation on merits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% of unaccounted business receipts, considering prior disclosures to avoid double taxation. It upheld the disallowance of loss set-off against undisclosed income under Section 79A.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. This was granted as a final opportunity, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
The Tribunal found substantial force in the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee needed to substantiate its claim of unconsumed challans with documentary evidence. However, since the assessee undertook to furnish complete details, copies of challans, and reconciliation before the AO/TDS CPC, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the claim, and the assessee must provide all particulars, including challan copies, payment dates, TDS liability, utilization details, and reconciliation. The AO will then determine the credit available and recompute the demand under section 201(1A) and the consequential interest under section 220(2). Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal also directed the assessee to furnish complete particulars of payees, payments, and evidence of tax payment by payees to the AO/TDS CPC for determination of interest under section 201(1A) in accordance with law, emphasizing that claims must be substantiated with documentary evidence. The Tribunal clarified it had not expressed a final view on the factual correctness of the claims.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered expenses like loading, unloading, salaries, and administrative expenses, nor had the CIT(Appeals) considered the AO's acceptance of lower income rates in the assessee's own case for the succeeding year (AY 2018-19, net profit rate of 1.76%) and in the case of the assessee's brother for the same year (AY 2017-18, net profit rate of 1.87%). While these precedents cannot be mechanically applied, they are relevant for determining a reasonable income rate. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(Appeals) had accepted the assessee as a commission agent and the deposits as business turnover. However, considering the substantial volume of transactions and the lack of complete records, a reduction solely on general claims was not warranted. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restrict the estimation of business income to 2% of the total receipts of Rs. 5,69,58,722. The AO was directed to recompute the income accordingly. The issue regarding Section 69A and Section 115BBE was implicitly addressed by treating the income under normal provisions at a reduced rate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were reasonably explained by the assessee's disclosed business receipts and past savings. The utilization of the deposits for purchasing gold further supported the explanation. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G solely on the technical ground of selecting the incorrect item (Item A instead of Item B) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had admitted the mistake was bona fide and inadvertent, stemming from a lack of technical/legal knowledge regarding the new registration regime. The Tribunal found that once the provisional registration was granted based on the same application, the CIT(E) should not have rejected the applications on this technicality. The assessee should have been granted an opportunity to rectify the mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications after allowing the assessee to rectify the errors in Form-10AB and decide them on merits, after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to file correct applications. The ratio is that genuine charitable institutions should be given an opportunity to rectify bona fide procedural errors rather than facing outright rejection, especially when the error is admitted and the core charitable activity is not in doubt.
The Tribunal held that where an assessee is completely debt-free and does not incur any interest cost on borrowed funds, no separate transfer pricing adjustment towards notional interest on outstanding trade receivables is warranted, following the decision in Kore AI Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, which in turn relied on decisions of the Chennai and Delhi Benches, ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the claim of being debt-free requires factual verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification. If found to be debt-free, the AO is directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,46,83,001/-. Other grounds were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G solely on the technical ground of selecting the incorrect item (Item A instead of Item B) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had admitted the mistake was bona fide and inadvertent, stemming from a lack of technical/legal knowledge regarding the new registration regime. The Tribunal found that once the provisional registration was granted based on the same application, the CIT(E) should not have rejected the applications on this technicality. The assessee should have been granted an opportunity to rectify the mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications after allowing the assessee to rectify the errors in Form-10AB and decide them on merits, after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to file correct applications. The ratio is that genuine charitable institutions should be given an opportunity to rectify bona fide procedural errors rather than facing outright rejection, especially when the error is admitted and the core charitable activity is not in doubt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay. The assessee's consistent non-compliance at assessment, first appellate, and tribunal stages demonstrated negligence and inaction, not circumstances beyond their control.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to validly assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2019-20. The satisfaction note dated 27.06.2022 did not demonstrate the requisite application of mind by the AO specifically concerning AY 2019-20. The Tribunal noted that while the seized material might contain transactions relatable to FY 2018-19 (relevant for AY 2019-20), the foundational defect lay in the satisfaction note itself, which primarily related to Financial Year 2015-16. The Tribunal emphasized that the requisite satisfaction must emanate from the AO and cannot be inferred or reconstructed later. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and the Delhi High Court judgment in Saksham Commodities Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal concluded that a general observation about the seized documents pertaining to a range of assessment years is insufficient. Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed for want of valid jurisdiction, and consequently, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was also set aside. Other grounds were rendered academic and left undecided.