ITAT Indore Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations for the inordinate delay to be vague and contradictory, lacking any supporting evidence. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, stating the assessee failed to demonstrate a bona fide attempt to file the appeal within the limitation period.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and for the grounds raised to be decided on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and for the grounds raised to be decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that there was a complete lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3), rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner's order was upheld.

The tribunal decided to remand the issues concerning the sale of the shop and the sale of furniture back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee presenting additional evidence for the first time before the tribunal and the CIT(A) having passed ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal held that the unsecured loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from Reshma Qureshi was sufficiently explained and allowed the deletion of the addition. However, the disallowance of donation and charity expenses of Rs. 29,867/- was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to alleged violations of Section 13, income over expenditure, undisclosed investments, and unexplained cash. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate remaining grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The penalty levied was also deleted as it was consequential to the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The penalty levied was also deleted as it was consequential to the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 50C(1) if the conditions are met, and that investment in new land made before the registration of the sale deed, from sale proceeds received under the agreement, is eligible for exemption under Section 54B. Interest under Sections 234A and 234B and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54F based on the deposit made in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme, subject to proportionate calculation as per Section 54F(1)(b).

The Tribunal found that both the AO and the assessee were not presenting a clear picture of the sources of specific deposit entries. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the sale deeds and the bank deposits, particularly concerning cheque credits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had subsequently provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the nature and source of the impugned receipts. The AO had passed the assessment order without considering the assessee's request for time to furnish details.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of Section 35AD deduction to the AO for proper verification of bifurcated income and expenditure details. For the disallowance of salary expenditure treated as capital, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the investment in the new house made after the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) but within the extended period under Section 139(4) is eligible for exemption under Section 54F. The assessee is entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the deposit of demonetized currency notes was not abnormal given the limited window for deposit. The assessee's explanation of cash availability supported by cash books and sales details was found sufficient.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. Regarding anonymous donations, it held that the assessee had provided the name and address of donors, satisfying Section 115BBC(3), and deleted the addition. For unsecured loans, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of utilization for charitable purposes and genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry to ascertain the correct facts regarding the duty drawback receipts, especially given the significant discrepancy between the assessee's disclosure and the CBEC data. Therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's order, being consequential to a quashed revision order, could not survive. The appeal was also found to be not maintainable due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that transactions of sale are completed when the assessee receives full sale consideration and executes an agreement to sell, not just when the final sale deed is executed. Therefore, flats booked and paid for, except for cancelled bookings, should be considered sales.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the AO. This was done to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence, as the original return of income was not considered.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant records and explanations.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) sent notices to an incorrect email ID, leading to the assessee's non-representation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was to allow verification of the correct salary income after rectification and for the assessee to explain the source of credit card payments.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting the ex-parte nature of both lower orders and the lack of opportunity for the assessee to present details. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce relevant details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made specific inquiries regarding the excess stock and the assessee had provided explanations, including that the jewellery belonged to the ancestral money-lending business. Since the AO took a plausible view based on the explanation and judicial precedents, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the valuation of excess stock, finding no specific defects pointed out by the assessee. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that Section 115BBE was not applicable to the sustained addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the counsel's inadvertent mistake. It further held that the CIT(Exemption) had not considered the order of the Hon'ble High Court which had previously set aside similar orders for reconsideration.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee to produce necessary details and evidence regarding government aid for verifying the exemption claim.

The tribunal held that the assessee was in existence as an AOP at the time of land purchase, and the company, as its successor, could not disown the transaction. However, due to non-cooperation during assessment, the issue of addition was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue originated from a protective addition made in the preceding AY 2016-17, and the CIT(A) decided the appeal for AY 2017-18 without addressing the status of AY 2016-17. Therefore, the matter was remanded for conjoint adjudication.

The Tribunal, in agreement with both parties, decided to remand the case back to the AO. The AO is to re-adjudicate the matter after considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and any other evidence produced during the hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the retrospective applicability of the first proviso to Section 50C. It also found the AO's estimation of the cost of acquisition to be faulty due to overlooking locational differences in land, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding donations, and therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the material and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, on which the addition was based, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment order was rendered voidable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the disallowance of interest on unsecured loans, finding the AO's comparison flawed. However, it upheld the addition related to interest-free advances and the disallowance of VAT on vehicle sale.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the marginal delay and the assessee's explanation. It also noted that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal held that the issue was well-settled in favour of the assessee based on their own past cases and a recent ITAT decision in a similar matter. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established view and decided to delete the addition made by the AO.

The tribunal held that the first return was invalid due to the delayed ITR-V submission, making the subsequent intimation under section 143(1) also invalid. The tribunal directed the AO to verify the second return and consider the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad).

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and verification regarding the expenses, as evidenced by multiple notices issued and the assessee's detailed replies. The non-response of the vendor (M/s AD Enterprises) to notices was not the assessee's fault.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions related to three of the four companies, the addition pertaining to 'Luxo Foams Private Limited' (Rs. 98,00,000/-) needed fresh adjudication as this entity was not part of the previous ITAT order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for this specific issue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not providing reasons for the decision. Both parties agreed to remand the matter for a proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is linked to the quantum addition, and if the addition itself is deleted, the penalty cannot survive. The pendency of the revenue's appeal before the High Court does not justify the survival of the penalty.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) made an apparent mistake in considering the appeal as time-barred due to a typographical error in the appeal memo. The tribunal also noted that the addition of Rs. 5,11,862/- by the CPC appeared to be a case of double taxation.

The Tribunal found that the AO made an addition of the entire bank deposit without proper verification and that the assessee claimed not to have received notices from the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the registered sale deed and bank statements clearly indicated payment through cheques, dislodging the presumption of cash payment. The explanation of mutual understanding and customary practice of not charging interest within the community was accepted.

The Tribunal held that previous withdrawals from a bank account should be considered as available to explain subsequent deposits, even with a time gap, as long as the withdrawn cash was not utilized elsewhere. The Tribunal found that the amount of previous withdrawal was sufficient to cover the deposit.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. This was done to allow the assessee an opportunity to provide explanations and supporting evidence for cash deposits, as neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the merits.