ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into the Section 80IB deduction claim. The Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was upheld, and the case was set aside for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a reasonable cause beyond the assessee's control. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the TDS credit as the income was offered to tax.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied if there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the income tax return. Since the surrendered income was declared in the return, penalty on this amount was not sustainable. However, penalty on the addition of Rs. 10,565/- for non-disclosure of rental income was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since obtained approval for the scheme from the Principal CIT with retrospective effect. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider this approval and allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable as they did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT circulars, specifically amended para 10(e) of Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 23 of 2019.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable as they did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT circulars, including the amended para 10(e) of Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 23 of 2019.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to attend proceedings and provide necessary documentation.

The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that there was no conscious default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to non-service of notice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Assessing Officer, after re-examining the documents and considering the directions of the ITAT, allowed the TDS claim as no other co-owner had claimed it. Consequently, the assessee was granted full relief.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that income was not chargeable to tax was not a valid reason for non-compliance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities confirming the penalties for failure to file the return and non-compliance with notices.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that income was not chargeable to tax was not a valid reason for non-compliance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities confirming the penalties for failure to file the return and non-compliance with notices.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO was without basis, as the expenses were for toll tax, entry fees, driver allowances, repairs, and other legitimate business expenses. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had also not judiciously dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior order. Therefore, the penalty had no basis to stand.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to lack of proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a due opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the excess interest paid to the related party was correctly disallowed as it was higher than the interest received by the assessee. No sufficient evidence was provided to justify the higher interest rate.

The Tribunal found the delay to be on reasonable grounds and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the bank statements showing cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of part of expenditure does not amount to concealment of income. Since there was no finding of inaccurate particulars being furnished by the assessee, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271A for the failure to maintain books of account. The assessee had accepted the finding that proper books of account were not maintained.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order passed by the AO. The matter was restored to the AO to decide afresh after considering the documents filed by the assessee, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a mala fide intention to conceal income, and the initial surrender was made for mental peace. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not challenged the stock quantity and had provided purchase bills for valuation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) and that proper opportunity was not given. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on unloading expenses due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documentation. Similarly, disallowances for miscellaneous expenses were confirmed for lack of evidence. The issue of interest on income tax refunds was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.