Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's submission of suffering from neurological issues since June/July 2025, supported by an affidavit and prescription slip. This was considered a "sufficient cause" in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution after giving only three opportunities with short intervals. It was not on record if these notices were actually served. To ensure substantial justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the rebate under Section 87A. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee's total income was Rs. 4,85,120/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 7,00,000/- specified for the rebate under Section 87A. The Tribunal noted that while Section 112A of the Act explicitly excludes Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from the rebate under Section 87A, there is no such condition mentioned for Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) under Section 111A. The rebate claimed by the assessee, Rs. 8,183/-, was also below the limit of Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the AO/CPC was considered well-reasoned and did not warrant interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's application for withdrawal and the absence of any objection from the revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the appellant, Kaushalam Foundation, is allowed. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) had previously passed an order dated 27.09.2026 granting registration to the appellant under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that all objections raised by the CIT(E) while rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) had become infructuous, as they had already been decided in favour of the appellant during the disposal of the Section 12AB application. Since approval under Section 80G is consequential to registration under Section 12AB, and the latter had been granted, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to issue the approval under Section 80G in accordance with the law. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 54B. Citing the decision in Pitambar Lal V/s ITO and the principle that the language of Section 54B and 54EC regarding investment is pari materia, the Tribunal noted that the claim for deduction under Section 54B cannot be denied solely because the investment in new agricultural land was made prior to the transfer of the existing agricultural land, provided the investment was made from the consideration received against this transfer. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Pune Bench upheld by the Bombay High Court in Subhash Vinayak Supnekar. Regarding the addition of Rs. 3,74,541/- on account of commission income, the Tribunal found the revenue's working in Para 7 of the assessment order to be erroneous. It concurred with the assessee's submission that the total payment received from IOC was Rs. 24,27,853/-, and the differential amount was wrongly calculated. The Tribunal also found the revenue's contention regarding the unregistered agreement of sale to be unacceptable, considering it a document based on customs and usages, and not argued to be bogus or fictitious. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, deleting the additions.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Regarding the disallowance for late payment of PF/ESIC contributions, the Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1, which disallowed expenditures due to statutory violations. However, for specific amounts (Rs. 11,54,053/- for AY 2022-23 and Rs. 17,60,258/- for AY 2023-24), the assessee demonstrated that payments were made in the next month, extending the due date as per Section 38 of the PF Act, 1952, making them allowable under Section 36(1)(va). These grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify payments and challans. Concerning the addition of Rs. 51,261/- as undisclosed business receipts, the Tribunal found these to be reimbursements and credit notes not liable to tax, thus deleting the addition. For the disallowance of interest and charges on delayed PF/ESIC remittances, the Tribunal held that such charges are generally penal and not allowable, citing Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. This ground was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Regarding the disallowance for late payment of PF/ESIC contributions, the Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1, which disallowed expenditures due to statutory violations. However, for specific amounts (Rs. 11,54,053/- for AY 2022-23 and Rs. 17,60,258/- for AY 2023-24), the assessee demonstrated that payments were made in the next month, extending the due date as per Section 38 of the PF Act, 1952, making them allowable under Section 36(1)(va). These grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify payments and challans. Concerning the addition of Rs. 51,261/- as undisclosed business receipts, the Tribunal found these to be reimbursements and credit notes not liable to tax, thus deleting the addition. For the disallowance of interest and charges on delayed PF/ESIC remittances, the Tribunal held that such charges are generally penal and not allowable, citing Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. This ground was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that the disputed amount of Rs. 13,521/- is significantly below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. While the Revenue argued that the case falls under exception clause 'a' of CBDT Circular No. 05/2024, the departmental representative failed to produce any material on record to substantiate the claim of unconstitutionality during the hearing. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed in view of the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. However, it was clarified that the Revenue is at liberty to file a miscellaneous application (MA) within the period of limitation, if so advised.
The Tribunal noted that the agreement to sell, purportedly dated 10.01.2010, stated a total sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- with payments of Rs. 24,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash by the assessee to Shri Dannalal Patel, and a balance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. However, the agreement did not bear the assessee's signature. The balance amount was paid by Smt. Kesar Bai via cheque, and the sale deed dated 19.10.2010 was executed in favour of Smt. Kesar Bai for Rs. 6,00,000/-. Shri Dannalal Patel's affidavit stated receipt of Rs. 24,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash from the assessee. The AO issued a letter under Section 133(6) to the District Registrar. The Tribunal found that the AO had initiated proceedings based on an agreement not signed by the assessee and where the stamp was issued after the agreement date. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition for non-explanation of the source of investment and validity of reopening. The Tribunal did not provide a final decision on the issues in the provided excerpt, but the discussion indicates a focus on the authenticity of the agreement and the source of funds.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of both lower authorities were ex-parte in nature. It observed that the assessee was non-compliant at both the assessment and appellate stages. However, considering the assessee's affidavit regarding her father's illness and the need to secure the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The Tribunal found that both the Revenue's representative and the assisting Chartered Accountant were in agreement that the matter should be remanded. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. However, the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted before the Tribunal that the assessee is illiterate and was unaware of the proceedings, and that the property sale was based on a revoked Power of Attorney. The AR requested a last opportunity to participate before the CIT(A). The Tribunal, considering that the CIT(A)'s order was passed based on the assessee's non-compliance and the AR's undertaking to be participative, decided to set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) with strict directions to the assessee to participate in the hearing and file all submissions and supporting documents. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking and well-reasoned order on merits. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 43,84,170 made by the Assessing Officer resulted in double taxation, as the cash sales forming the basis of this addition had already been offered for taxation by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC), stating that once sales are offered for taxation, the same income cannot be taxed again. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer found no evidence of backdating, bogus transactions, or non-existent cash, and the VAT returns were consistent with the accounting records. However, acknowledging that some documents were self-serving and lacked customer names, the Tribunal found merit in protecting the revenue's interest. Both parties agreed to an estimated disallowance. Following judicial pronouncements (CIT Vs. President Industries, CIT Vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, CIT Vs. Saint Synthetics Mill, CIT v. Williamson Financial Services), the Tribunal held that only the profit element of the sales should be taxed, not the gross receipts. Therefore, an ad hoc estimated addition of 10% of Rs. 43,84,170, amounting to Rs. 4,38,417, was directed to be made to take care of inconsistencies and protect revenue leakage. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided on the following issues: 1. Regarding the addition of Rs. 4,31,985/- (Issue 1), the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the cash deposit was partly from a gift of Rs. 6,50,000/- from her daughter-in-law, supported by an affidavit. However, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not produce a cash book or ledger to corroborate this specific amount and treated it as unexplained under Section 69A. The Tribunal, after hearing arguments, did not explicitly rule on this ground in the provided excerpt, but the initial grounds of appeal suggest it was contested. The judgment excerpt does not contain the final decision on this specific ground. 2. Regarding the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 20,88,033/- (Issue 2), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention. The assessee had provided invoices reflecting retailer and distributor commissions, along with affidavits from some retailers. The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not point out any infirmity in the explanation or documents filed and failed to provide reasons for deeming the evidence insufficient. The Tribunal concluded that the genuineness of the commission expenses was duly established and set aside the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO to allow the claim. The ratio is that when documentary evidence and affidavits are provided to substantiate business expenses, and no specific infirmities are pointed out by the revenue, such claims should be allowed. 3. Regarding the disallowance of salary expenses of Rs. 11,58,106/- (Issue 3), the Tribunal found that while the assessee's business volume suggested the need for employees, and affidavits of some employees were filed, other crucial evidence like salary registers, vouchers, or payment proofs were not submitted. The Tribunal considered it just and reasonable to allow salary expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, confirming the disallowance of the balance claim of Rs. 6,58,106/-. The ratio is that while some substantiation can be accepted, complete disallowance is not warranted if partial evidence exists, but the claim must be reasonably quantified based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the grounds related to the initiation of penalty proceedings (Ground 6) and the overall computation of total income (Ground 5) as they depend on the outcome of the other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2012-13 were indeed barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.03.2023. It was presumed that books of accounts and documents were received by the AO of the assessee in the previous year 2022-23. Therefore, the year in which the search action was to be treated as initiated in the case of the assessee was AY 2023-24. As per Section 153C, six years prior to the search year can be assessed, which goes up to AY 2017-18. Consequently, the reopening for AY 2012-13 was found to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the issue under Section 148 was barred by limitation. The order passed as a consequence was held to be void ab initio and quashed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the case to the file of the AO for reconsideration was accordingly set aside as infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the denial of the basic exemption to the assessee under Section 115BAC was incorrect and unjustified. The CIT(A)'s reasoning was based solely on the indeterminate shares of members, leading to the application of Section 167B and MMR. However, the Tribunal noted that the CPC's intimation itself, as reproduced in the CIT(A)'s order, indicated that the assessee had not opted out of the new tax regime under Section 115BAC(6). The Tribunal found no reasoning from the department for denying the benefit of basic exemption. Furthermore, it was admitted that the same benefit was allowed to the assessee by the CPC in the preceding and succeeding assessment years (AY 2023-24 and AY 2025-26) under identical circumstances. Since the assessee's income (Rs. 1,71,260/-) was below the exemption limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 115BAC, and no taxable income existed, the denial of the basic exemption was held to be erroneous. The Tribunal directed the CPC to allow the benefit of basic exemption to the assessee. Consequently, there was no tax liability for the impugned year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to rebate under Section 87A for Assessment Year 2024-25. The reasoning was based on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, which do not contain any express bar either in Section 87A or Section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains arising from the transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under Section 111A. The Tribunal noted that the legislative intent is further clarified by the prospective amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2025, which reinforces that no such restriction was in force during the relevant assessment year. The denial of rebate by the CPC was considered to be based solely on system-driven logic, not on any statutory mandate. The Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio laid down in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana vs. ITO (ITAT, Ahmedabad) and other similar decisions. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the rebate of Rs. 19,857/- claimed by the assessee under Section 87A and recompute the tax liability. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,08,550/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits as premiums collected in his business as an insurance agent. The primary reasons for the CIT(A)'s rejection were that the assessee's name did not appear on some policies and that there was no evidence of SBNs being collected. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided explanations for his name not appearing on policies, including working with other agents on a commission-sharing basis, and had supported this with affidavits from those agents and bank statements showing commission receipts. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated these submissions and evidence. Regarding the SBNs, the Tribunal held that merely not evidencing the collection of SBNs was not sufficient to reject the assessee's explanation, as it is impractical to keep detailed records of currency received, and the overall evidence sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition was set aside, and the amount was directed to be deleted. The issue of double taxation and the invocation of Section 115BBE were not expressly decided as the primary issue of unexplained cash was resolved in favor of the assessee.