ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee's cash book supported the availability of funds, and the revenue failed to bring contrary evidence. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if books of account are not disturbed by the AO, the assessee's claim supported by them cannot be denied.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under the second part of Section 11(1)(a) for accumulation of income is a statutory claim. Despite the error in Form 10B and the expiry of the revised return filing deadline, the appellate authorities can allow such a statutory claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's withdrawal of the claim was not voluntary but made after the AO initiated scrutiny and issued notices. The claim of speculative loss as business loss constituted furnishing incorrect particulars of income, making the penalty valid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding the inactive email ID and lack of knowledge of the ex-parte order. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of abnormal sales during a short period to explain the cash deposit was not sufficiently supported by evidence, particularly the absence of a stock register. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act to file an appeal against an order passed under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

The tribunal found that while the assessee had provided some financial statements, they lacked specific details regarding the cash used for the property investments. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish complete particulars.

The Tribunal held that the latest CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 supersedes earlier circulars and does not provide an exception for audit objections. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the latest CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 supersedes earlier circulars and does not provide exceptions for audit objections regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte and not deciding the issue of the validity of the Section 148 notice on merits. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were within the statutory time limit, as the appeal period should be counted from the date of the revised demand notice. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided financial statements, they lacked precise details regarding the construction dates and sources of investment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were within the statutory time limit, as the appeal period should be counted from the date of the revised demand notice. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was not properly served on the assessee, and the appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of actual communication. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeal due to sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper adjudication, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity for a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable when no obligation arises to pay advance tax, as in cases where the assessee claims no taxable income. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on this ground was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without discussing the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit the requisite documents and information.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee presented additional evidence for the first time before it. To ensure proper verification and examination, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's lack of opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and the ex-parte nature of the order, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that it was unclear which part of a previous ITAT order applied to the current facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is mandatory if the employee contribution is not deposited on or before the due date, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited. No relaxation was found to be applicable.