Loading ITAT cases…
60 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the amount of Rs. 1,46,13,858/- was reported in Clause 34(a) of Form 3CD as TDS deducted on commission paid to agents of cultivators, not as the assessee's own expenditure. The assessee's business involved procuring goods (bananas) on behalf of constituents/clients through other agents. The entire cost of purchase, including commission paid to these other agents, was debited to the accounts of the constituents/clients and did not form part of the assessee's Profit and Loss account. The assessee deducted TDS under Section 194H for compliance, but this commission was not an expenditure of the assessee. Therefore, there was no 'unexplained/unrecorded expenditure' to be disallowed under Section 69C. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The issue regarding the validity of the Section 154 proceedings and whether it constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record was implicitly decided in favor of the assessee by accepting the substantive ground of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the period for compliance with notices fell within the Covid-19 lockdown, making it impossible for the assessee to comply. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the period for compliance with the notices fell within the Covid-19 lockdown period, making it impossible for the assessee to comply due to extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the penalty imposed was set aside.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides and the orders of the lower authorities. Acknowledging the principle of natural justice and noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. This decision was made at the risk and responsibility of the assessee. A condition was imposed that the assessee must pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the 'Prime Minister National Relief Fund' and submit proof to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee was also cautioned to be vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with the law. The issue of the admissibility and merits of the additional evidence was implicitly left to be decided by the AO upon remand.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's lands were excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. This was based on certificates from Gram Panchayats stating the lands were situated at distances of 10 Kms and 8 Kms from the Indore Municipal limit, thus exceeding the prescribed 8 km distance. The Tribunal found the AO's observation regarding non-filing of documentary evidence to be incorrect, as the assessee had submitted relevant certificates. The AO was also found to be incorrect in linking the distance to the Tehsil rather than the Municipality. Consequently, the resultant capital gain was not taxable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 67,56,545/-. Grounds No. 2 to 4 raised by the assessee were allowed. Regarding Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of re-opening under Section 147, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to adjudicate as the addition was deleted on merit. The issue of agricultural use of land, initially raised by the AO for re-opening, was noted as dropped by the AO in the assessment order and thus not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the period for compliance, falling within the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown, made it impossible for the assessee to comply with the notices. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the period for compliance with the notices fell within the Covid-19 pandemic, a period of nationwide lockdown. Given the extraordinary circumstances and the impossibility of compliance, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that the capital gain accruing on the land until the date of its diversion for non-agricultural use should be treated as arising from agricultural land and would be exempt from tax. The fair market value of the land as on the date of diversion would be considered as the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains on the diverted land. The Tribunal noted that the AO had rejected the assessee's claim that the land was beyond 8 kms, relying on the Tehsildar's report. However, the Tribunal, adopting a pre-existing view, decided that the fair market value of the land as on the date of diversion should be computed. This fair market value would be the cost of acquisition for the 'diverted/non-agricultural' land. The matter was remanded to the AO to ascertain this fair market value with the support of a Valuation Officer. Regarding Section 54B, the Tribunal held that since the capital gain on agricultural land until diversion is exempt, Section 54B exemption is not required for that portion. For the post-diversion period, the land is considered non-agricultural, and Section 54B only applies to capital gains from agricultural land, thus the claim for exemption under Section 54B for the post-diversion gain was dismissed as infructuous. The addition of Rs. 88,78,365/- made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged the non-compliance of the assessee but, considering the trivial nature of the issue and the penalty amount, agreed with both parties that a reduced penalty would meet the ends of justice. The penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- to bring finality to the litigation.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the due process of law as enshrined under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules before admitting additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 461 days in filing the appeals. It reasoned that the assessee provided a sufficient cause supported by an affidavit and a confirmatory letter from the previous counsel, with no evidence of ulterior motive or attempt to save limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of 'substantial justice' over 'technical considerations', citing Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh, and a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision. It noted that condoning the delay would not grant automatic registration/approval but would allow the assessee an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(E), without prejudicing the revenue. A cost of Rs. 2,500/- was imposed on the assessee in each case, payable to the Income-tax Department, to offset the revenue's efforts and make the assessee more alert. On merit, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with notices led to ex-parte orders and the selection of a wrong clause under Section 12A(1)(ac). To impart substantial justice, the Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee and considering a rectified application if desired. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders uninfluenced by previous orders, and the assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO taxed the entire sale consideration of the property as capital gain without allowing the deduction of the cost of acquisition, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Considering the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done at the risk and responsibility of the assessee, subject to the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the 'Prime Minister National Relief Fund' and submits the receipt to the AO. The AO was directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 461 days in filing the appeals. It reasoned that the assessee provided a sufficient cause supported by an affidavit and a confirmatory letter from the previous counsel, with no evidence of ulterior motive or attempt to save limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of 'substantial justice' over 'technical considerations', citing Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh, and a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision. It noted that condoning the delay would not grant automatic registration/approval but would allow the assessee an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(E), without prejudicing the revenue. A cost of Rs. 2,500/- was imposed on the assessee in each case, payable to the Income-tax Department, to offset the revenue's efforts and make the assessee more alert. On merit, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with notices led to ex-parte orders and the selection of a wrong clause under Section 12A(1)(ac). To impart substantial justice, the Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee and considering a rectified application if desired. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders uninfluenced by previous orders, and the assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 183 days in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal approach based on the affidavit filed by the assessee and the ratio laid down in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the legal issues (Grounds 1-4), the Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 can be initiated during ongoing regular proceedings and that the ITO validly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file a regular return and respond to notices. Therefore, the legal issues were dismissed. On the merits of the case (Grounds 5-8), the Tribunal observed that the assessee is a cooperative society serving poor villagers and that the board members are not well-educated. It noted the cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee's failure to provide complete details to the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the larger interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal restored all issues raised on merits back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given a sufficient opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits and the correctness of interest expenditure. Grounds 5 to 8 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the construction of the building for charitable activities should be considered part of the charitable activity itself. The CIT(Exemption)'s observation that construction was ongoing indicated that the assessee had indeed started activities towards its charitable objects.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to explain the cash deposits and contractual receipts.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for unexplained cash deposit was uncalled for, considering the CBDT's instruction not to verify cash deposits up to Rs. 2.5 lakhs during demonetization. The addition was deleted, and the ground was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's grounds regarding lack of proper opportunity, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to present submissions and evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty for the assessee to recall the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of interest income earned from cooperative banks, following Gujarat High Court and Tribunal precedents. However, the quantification of the deduction needs to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the reasons provided and the judgment in Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits, allowing it for statistical purposes. The assessee is directed to present all relevant material evidence regarding the source of alleged unexplained money, and the AO is to provide a reasonable opportunity before deciding the matter in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal noted the conflicting positions of the assessee declaring residency in both Singapore and India, and the TDS claim. It held that these facts warranted examination by the Assessing Officer to determine the correct TDS credit entitlement based on applicable laws.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide and not intentional. It further held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and that the AO had passed an ex-parte order. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal also noted that the lender companies were 'active' and that the loans had been repaid. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was covered and the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the crucial factor for determining the year of chargeability for capital gains tax is the date of transfer of the asset. In this case, the assessee provided evidence that the sale deed was executed on March 26, 2013, which falls within the assessment year 2013-14. Although the registration was completed on April 15, 2013, which falls into the assessment year 2014-15, the Act defines 'transfer' to include the extinguishment of rights. The execution of the sale deed signifies the transfer of ownership and rights, irrespective of the registration date, especially when the sale consideration was received on the date of execution. Therefore, the transaction rightly belonged to AY 2013-14. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2014-15 based on this transaction were invalid. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on this point. The issue regarding the additional income of ₹5,50,000 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt but was part of the AO's assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department and provide all necessary documents, including the sale deed and land holding certificates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal, and the departmental representative did not object. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(A) was incorrect and did not properly deal with the assessee's case. The CIT(A) incorrectly stated that the addition was Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan and low withdrawals, but then only listed three loans totaling Rs. 7,00,000/-, including one of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Shri Ajay Agarwal, which was the primary dispute. More significantly, the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the component of household expenses of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not mention or consider the proceedings related to the submission of additional evidence, the remand report from the AO, and the assessee's rejoinder, which had taken place at the level of CIT(A)-1, Bhopal, before the case migrated to the faceless regime and was decided by CIT(A), NFAC. This communication gap led to the non-consideration of crucial earlier proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was flawed and lacked proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide necessary opportunities to the assessee and consider the case judiciously, without being influenced by any previous order, and to seek a remand report from the AO if deemed fit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's severe medical condition (cancer) as explained in the affidavit and supported by medical documents. The Tribunal noted that the case was very old, pertaining to AY 2008-09. Regarding the addition of Rs. 16,69,500/-, the Tribunal observed that although the AO made an ex-parte assessment, the assessee subsequently filed a return declaring a turnover of Rs. 18,78,500/- and a presumptive income of Rs. 93,925/- under Section 44AF. This income was in accordance with the presumptive provisions and was below the tax-exempt limit of Rs. 1,10,000/- for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the assessee was legally not required to file a return under Section 139. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to modify the assessment order and restrict the addition to Rs. 93,925/-, deleting the excess addition. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the adjudication was confined to this case due to exceptional circumstances and would not be quoted as a precedent. The assessee was granted partial relief.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee possesses substantial evidence of purchases which requires examination by the AO. It noted that the AO did not supply the physical verification report to the assessee. While acknowledging the assessee's responsibility for the ex-parte assessment due to non-compliance with notices, the Tribunal found the adjudication by the lower authorities to be inappropriate and lacking consideration of evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee was directed to participate diligently in future hearings. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income-tax Department, for the non-compliance leading to the current situation. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the ultimate quantum of disallowance, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial evidence of purchases that needed examination by the AO. It also noted the AO's failure to provide a remand report to the CIT(A) and the lack of consideration of evidence by lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under Section 147 were unlawful and unsustainable. The primary reason for this finding was the lack of valid material or information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The survey was conducted on a partnership firm, M/s Saras Agro, not the assessee's proprietorship concern, and no information about bogus expenses/loss by the assessee was found during the survey. Furthermore, the ITO-1, Khandwa, had no basis for sending adverse information to the AO. The Tribunal acknowledged that the sufficiency of reasons or information from other authorities cannot be questioned in general, but in this specific case, the recorded reasons lacked any valid basis. The Tribunal also noted that the AO himself dropped the reassessment proceedings, accepting income at Rs. Nil, after considering the assessee's objections, which indicated the AO's own realization that the case was not fit for reopening. Consequently, since the reassessment proceedings were invalid, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was also deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal quashed the revision order. The merit of the revision order was not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on the issue of reopening.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the power to levy late fees under Section 234E for defaults occurring before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Consequently, the late fees and any consequential interest were deleted.
The Tribunal found sufficient force in the Revenue's submissions and rejected the assessee's delay application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the power to levy late fees under Section 234E for defaults occurring before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Consequently, the late fees and any consequential interest were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative fairly agreed to the assessee's prayer. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's willingness to file Form No. 26A and avail the benefit of the first proviso to Section 201(1) and the first proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had explained that the delay in submissions before the CIT(A) was due to the time taken to receive requisite forms from its head office. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to make full representation before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after examining the evidences filed by the assessee and further submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to give a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Noting the assessee's willingness to furnish Form 26A to avail benefits under the provisos to Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), and with the Revenue's agreement, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make full representation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for hearing and for the assessee to participate diligently.
The Tribunal observed that the principle of natural justice was not followed. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity for hearing and adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions of both parties and, considering the principle of natural justice, remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte due to insufficient and disproportionately spaced opportunities, leading to a violation of natural justice. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed to a remand. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication (de novo) with directions for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding no serious opposition from the revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order might have violated principles of natural justice due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had specifically requested that notices not be sent via email. The CIT(A) proceeded to send notices via email, which the assessee claims was not received. This procedural lapse led to the assessee not being able to present their case effectively.