Loading ITAT cases…
7,704 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.
Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.
In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.
Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), are allowable deductions under section 36(1)(va) and cannot be disallowed. Such an adjustment is also not permissible summarily under section 143(1).
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.
A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.
For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.
An assessee cannot claim deductions or expenditures in a Section 153A assessment that were not claimed in the original completed assessment, even if documents were found during a search.
The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.
Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.
An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.
In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.
An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.
Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.
An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.
In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.
Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.
For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delay, considering that the assessee was a household lady, lacked technical knowledge, and her tax affairs were managed by her deceased father-in-law. The appeal was heard on merits. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of breakage expenses claimed by the assessee was not sustainable. The assessee was running a wine shop and had declared a turnover of Rs. 4,03,28,175/- with a net profit of 0.96%. It was noted that the assessee's books of accounts were audited under Section 44AB and accepted by the AO. The Tribunal reasoned that a mere difference in net profit compared to other businessmen in the same line of business does not justify an ad-hoc disallowance, especially when the books of accounts are duly audited and accepted. Factors such as individual expertise, trained staff, and marketing strategies can lead to variations in profit. Therefore, breakage expenses, which were duly detailed in the audited financials, could not be disallowed on an ad-hoc basis. The disallowance was ordered to be deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) did not grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee regarding the issues of non-registration under the RPT Act and the genuineness of activities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application stating a lack of bills and vouchers without dealing with the other documents submitted by the assessee. Regarding the application being filed under the wrong clause, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had been granted provisional registration twice previously, and the current application was filed in terms of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) as the previous provisional registration was about to expire. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not apply his mind to these facts and that mentioning the wrong clause is a curable defect. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue of grant of registration back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to furnish all facts regarding RPT registration, genuineness of activities, and the issue of the application being filed under the wrong clause, and to consider all other necessary matters for grant of registration.
The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Firstly, regarding the delay, the Tribunal condoned the 442-day delay, finding that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause by explaining that the delay was due to seeking legal advice after encountering technical confusion, and by citing the Supreme Court's precedent in M/s. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, which emphasizes a liberal approach in condoning delays when there is no deliberate intention to delay. Secondly, on the issue of exemption for leave encashment, the Tribunal held that the enhanced exemption limit of Rs.25,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT Notification No.31/2023 dated 24.05.2023 is applicable to the assessee's claim for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its coordinate Benches, which had allowed the benefit of the enhanced limit in similar cases. It reasoned that CBDT circulars, when beneficial to the assessee, can mitigate the rigors of law and cannot curtail benefits conferred by the Act. Since the assessee's leave encashment amount of Rs. 9,54,104/- was below the enhanced limit, the assessee was entitled to claim the entire amount as exempt. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Addl. CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) erred in deciding the penalty appeal without adjudicating the quantum appeal, which was still pending before the same authority. The Tribunal reasoned that a consequential penalty appeal cannot be decided independently as it is contingent upon the outcome of the quantum appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged that this might have been an oversight due to workload. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the quantum appeal is decided, and with an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was legally unsustainable due to contradictory findings. The Ld. CIT(A) had initially condoned the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, as recorded in paragraph 1.3.3 of his order, but subsequently, in the concluding part, declined to condone the delay. This act of 'making hot and cold in the same order' was found to be legally impermissible. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that although the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee, he did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass a fresh order on the merits of the case. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open for the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that nothing in Section 12A or 12AB bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The Tribunal noted that the earlier dismissal by the Tribunal on 06.02.2024 did not examine the genuineness of activities but was based on the Assessee not pursuing that application, thus settling the fate of that specific application, not the facts underlying it. The impugned order was found to proceed on a wrong premise. Regarding genuineness, the CIT(E)'s findings were considered unresolved queries, not conclusions. Deficiencies like missing ledgers, beneficiary details, and bills were deemed curable. The Tribunal found that the enquiry was compressed, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the Section 12A application was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity. The CIT(E) was given a free hand to examine all aspects, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which the Tribunal expressed no opinion. The observation regarding cancellation of provisional registration was deemed not to survive. Consequently, the order rejecting the Section 80G application was also set aside and restored for fresh decision along with or after the Section 12A application. The grounds of appeal were allowed to this extent.
The Tribunal held that nothing in Section 12A or 12AB bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The Tribunal noted that the earlier dismissal by the Tribunal on 06.02.2024 did not examine the genuineness of activities but was based on the Assessee not pursuing that application, thus settling the fate of that specific application, not the facts underlying it. The impugned order was found to proceed on a wrong premise. Regarding genuineness, the CIT(E)'s findings were considered unresolved queries, not conclusions. Deficiencies like missing ledgers, beneficiary details, and bills were deemed curable. The Tribunal found that the enquiry was compressed, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the Section 12A application was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity. The CIT(E) was given a free hand to examine all aspects, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which the Tribunal expressed no opinion. The observation regarding cancellation of provisional registration was deemed not to survive. Consequently, the order rejecting the Section 80G application was also set aside and restored for fresh decision along with or after the Section 12A application. The grounds of appeal were allowed to this extent.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It noted that both the assessee and the partnership firm filed their respective income tax returns on 21.09.2018, with the partnership firm filing an audited balance sheet. The AO had ignored the conversion of the proprietary concern into a partnership and then back to proprietorship, incorrectly adding the entire bank account receipts of the partnership firm to the assessee's individual income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition after analyzing the ITR filed by the partnership firm, its audited balance sheet, cash book, and bank passbook. The Ld. CIT-DR could not provide any contrary documents to establish that the bank account receipts belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption of the entire amount of Rs. 22,47,870 received as leave encashment. The Tribunal disagreed with the Chandigarh Bench's reasoning in Arvind Kumar Jolly, stating that the Explanatory Memorandum describes the operation of the enhanced limit as retrospective, and earlier notifications also operated retrospectively. The Tribunal noted that the notification dated 24.05.2023 was deemed to have come into force from 01.04.2023, indicating retrospective operation. The Tribunal also considered the Budget Speech and the arithmetic linking the enhanced figure to revised pay effective from 01.01.2016. The Tribunal affirmed its consistent view, supported by multiple co-ordinate and other Benches, that the enhanced limit applies to leave encashment received before 01.04.2023. The Tribunal clarified that it does not accept the assessee's contention that the fourth limb of Section 10(10AA)(ii) is null and void, but rather the limit, as now specified by the Central Government, is Rs. 25,00,000, which the assessee's receipt falls within. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption and delete the addition. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Following the admitted facts and the ITAT's order in ITA No. 1212/JPR/2026 concerning the Section 12A application, the application seeking approval under Section 80G of the Act was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the application afresh along with the assessee's application seeking registration under Section 12A. The reasoning was that the rejection of the Section 80G application was based on a curable defect in the manner of filing, similar to the Section 12A application. The ITAT in the Section 12A case had emphasized distinguishing between defects that go to substantive eligibility and those that merely inhere in the manner of presentation, with the latter potentially admitting rectification. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application itself.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential interest, amounting to Rs. 48,830, was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in True Blue Voice India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasoning was that Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which provides the mechanism for computing fees under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS statements, was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Although Section 234E was introduced earlier (01.07.2012), the authorities were not empowered to impose late fees while processing TDS returns under Section 200A of the Act prior to the insertion of Section 200A(1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning that the processing was done after 01.06.2015 was found to be without merit, as the Hon'ble Madras High Court had clearly held that for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, Section 234E fees were not applicable even if processing occurred after 01.06.2015. Since the present case pertains to AY 2013-14, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court squarely applies. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's arguments and set aside the impugned order confirming the levy of fees.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's vehicles qualified as Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and thus Section 44AE(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable for determining presumptive income. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'heavy goods vehicle' in the Explanation to Section 44AE(2)(i) specifies that it means any goods carriage with a gross vehicle weight exceeding 12,000 kilograms. The assessee's counsel acknowledged that for vehicles other than tractors or road-rollers, the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is to be considered for HGV classification. Since the assessee did not demonstrate that its vehicles were tractors or road-rollers, the unladen weight could not be considered. The Tribunal found that the GVW of the vehicles admittedly exceeded the 12,000 kgs limit. Consequently, the AO's computation of income under Section 44AE(2)(i) was upheld. The Tribunal also noted that the judicial precedents cited by the assessee could not be verified and were not accessible. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not specifically addressed in the provided extract of the judgment, but the overall dismissal implies it was not granted.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the three concerns did not fall within the ambit of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee prepared separate profit and loss accounts as per the agreements, and the profit was transferred, which was not fees for technical services but a business transaction. The Tribunal observed that the AO had previously examined similar issues for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and accepted the assessee's claim without disallowing the debit. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Parashuram Pottery Works Co Ltd Vs ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1' regarding the finality of litigation. Furthermore, the Revenue's learned counsel was unable to controvert the fact that identical issues for preceding years (AY 2009-10 to AY 2015-16) were decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and sustained its view. The addition of Rs. 1,30,43,753/- under Section 201(1) and interest of Rs. 1,17,39,378/- under Section 201(1A) were directed to be deleted. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal held that the assessee's circumstances, including being an illiterate villager unfamiliar with online procedures and the email ID issue, constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in not condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before it, for identical reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation, including the impact of the Corona Pandemic, was sufficient cause. Given that the assessment order was ex parte and the NFAC had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessment afresh after providing the assessee with due opportunity of hearing. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition made to the income of the assessee, amounting to Rs. 4,62,494/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs. 2,82,446/- for AY 2020-21, was grossly unjustified. The reasoning was based on the inconsistency of the AO's stand. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2021-22, the AO himself had found the gross profit rate declared by the assessee for AY 2020-21 to be justified when estimating net profits. This fact remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the assessment made in the present case, by adopting a different estimation method, was inconsistent and not justified as per the AO's own stand in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal agreed that since the AO found the gross profit for AY 2020-21 justified, there was no reason to make any addition in that year by estimation. Similarly, the gross profit for AY 2019-20 was shown to be in consonance with AY 2020-21, making the assessment in AY 2019-20 also unjustified based on the AO's subsequent stand. Consequently, the additions made were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention any issue left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the addition made to the income of the assessee, amounting to Rs. 4,62,494/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs. 2,82,446/- for AY 2020-21, was grossly unjustified. The reasoning was based on the inconsistency of the AO's stand. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2021-22, the AO himself had found the gross profit rate declared by the assessee for AY 2020-21 to be justified when estimating net profits. This fact remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the assessment made in the present case, by adopting a different estimation method, was inconsistent and not justified as per the AO's own stand in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal agreed that since the AO found the gross profit for AY 2020-21 justified, there was no reason to make any addition in that year by estimation. Similarly, the gross profit for AY 2019-20 was shown to be in consonance with AY 2020-21, making the assessment in AY 2019-20 also unjustified based on the AO's subsequent stand. Consequently, the additions made were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention any issue left undecided.