ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided reasonable and sufficient cause for non-compliance with the notices, citing her relocation and travel abroad. Therefore, the penalty levied was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. Provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override domestic law, and FTC cannot be denied solely for procedural delay.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not called for verification of the revised Khasra records. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification and decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying late fees under Section 234E are applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for TDS statements filed for the financial year 2012-13, which falls before this date, no late fees can be charged.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete it.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the AO erred by comparing the firm's capital account with the assessee's individual capital account and ignoring the consolidated personal balance sheet.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the firm was not tenable as the firm was closed and the income was offered by the proprietor. The Assessing Officer confirmed the addition despite the firm's closure and the proprietor offering the income.

The assessee's counsel filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without providing a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including agricultural land holdings and income details, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that these evidences were crucial for a fair decision.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it on merits, considering the assessee's submissions. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity of hearing and should cooperate in submitting information.

The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be considered if payments were made before registration, and that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed when the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in uploading the audit report is a procedural defect and curable, especially when the report was available before filing the return. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B electronically is a procedural defect and curable, especially when the audit report was prepared within the due date and filed during appellate proceedings. The denial of exemption solely on this technical ground was considered unjust.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO made an ad-hoc addition without doubting the genuineness of the expenditure. Considering the business turnover and nature, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the expenditure.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and substantiate it with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee, but acknowledged that there could be various reasons for non-appearance. Principles of natural justice were invoked to provide another opportunity.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing which were not responded to by the assessee. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, citing principles of natural justice. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) as per the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services. However, the issue of employer's contribution under Section 43B was not examined.