ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 201(1) read with 201(1A) was declared null and void due to being time-barred, there was no valid order holding the assessee guilty of non-deduction of TDS. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars are distinct charges. The AO must be specific in the show-cause notice and the penalty order regarding the charge invoked. Since the AO failed to do so, the penalty order is vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to follow the DVO's report once the matter is referred to him, and cannot entertain objections against it. For the second ground, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, relying solely on the assessment order due to the assessee's absence. The Tribunal found that only one hearing opportunity was given without proper service of notice.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were not satisfactory. The medical records provided only covered a very recent period, and the delay prior to that remained unexplained. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" and the lack of objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were not satisfactory. The medical records provided only covered a very recent period, and the delay prior to that remained unexplained. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The Tribunal held that the ledger containing donor details, produced before the AO, was not additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to re-examine these details and decide afresh on the applicability of Section 115BBC and computation of income.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's ground regarding non-supply of reasons for reopening was dismissed as the assessee never requested them during assessment or appeal. The addition on account of unexplained investment was set aside for fresh determination by the AO after excluding cash accruals from the cash flow statement.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued the necessary certificate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found the disallowance made by the lower authorities to be on the higher side and reduced the addition to Rs. 50,000.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's revised grounds of appeal, which challenged the validity of the reopening proceedings and the Pr. CIT's order. The Tribunal found these grounds to be legal and not requiring further evidence.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The department did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 486 days in filing the appeals. It found that the assessees, being illiterate farmers, had diligently pursued their legal remedies, seeking advice from various counsels. The initial mistake of filing a revision u/s 264 instead of an appeal to the Tribunal was attributed to confusion and advice from their local counsel, not to any deliberate attempt to delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not going to gain anything from the delay and their conduct was bonafide. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay, the Tribunal admitted the appeals for adjudication on merits. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal found that the AO had not provided a show-cause notice to the assessee before invoking Section 50C and substituting the stamp duty value for the actual sale consideration. Furthermore, the AO had not determined the cost of acquisition or improvement, despite having access to sale deeds. The CIT(A) also failed to provide findings on the cost of acquisition (claimed as ancestral land acquired before 1.4.1981), development expenditure, and expenses related to transfer. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Sh. Mahadev Balai vs. ITO regarding investment in the wife's name for Section 54B claims. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for a fresh examination of these critical aspects after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal, filed below the enhanced limit, was not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The department did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that while the sale proceeds of flats and cash withdrawals were not fully substantiated with a complete reconciliation, the revenue did not dispute the assessee's business income. Therefore, a portion of the cash deposits was treated as business turnover taxable under Section 44AF.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on suspicion and guesswork, and the sale vouchers of agricultural produce were not disproved. Following a similar decision for a sister concern, the Tribunal found no justification for the disallowance.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The department did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The department did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that only the profit on unrecorded transactions, not the entire sale price, could be assessed as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were restricted or deleted based on the admitted and disclosed income under the PMGKY scheme.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and the advance was given for commercial expediency. The disallowance of expenses was also restricted to Rs. 10,000/- due to lack of proper documentation for some items.

The Tribunal held that only the profit on unrecorded transactions, not the entire sale price, could be assessed as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were restricted or deleted based on the admitted and disclosed income under the PMGKY scheme.

The Tribunal held that the addition for excess stock was not justified as the assessee had explained the sales and profit thereon, and no corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales or excess stock was found. The addition for excess cash was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the differential amount of tax paid at the normal rate instead of the concessional rate, and the interest on delayed payment of statutory dues, are not in the nature of penalty for contravention of law. Therefore, these amounts are allowable as business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable as there was no payment by way of advance or loan from the company to the shareholder. Regarding Section 56(2)(vii)(c), the Tribunal followed precedent stating that it applies only when a disproportionate allotment of shares is received, which was not the case here.

The Tribunal held that only the profit on unrecorded transactions, not the entire sale price, could be assessed as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were restricted or deleted based on the admitted and disclosed income under the PMGKY scheme.

The Tribunal held that only the profit on unrecorded transactions, not the entire sale price, could be assessed as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were restricted or deleted based on the admitted and disclosed income under the PMGKY scheme.

The Tribunal held that only the profit on unrecorded transactions, not the entire sale price, could be assessed as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were restricted or deleted based on the admitted and disclosed income under the PMGKY scheme.

The Tribunal held that only the profit on unrecorded transactions, not the entire sale price, could be assessed as undisclosed income. The additions made by the AO were restricted or deleted based on the admitted and disclosed income under the PMGKY scheme.

The Tribunal held that the addition for excess stock was not justified as the assessee had explained the sales and profit thereon, and no corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales or excess stock was found. The addition for excess cash was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimated additions made by the AO, especially when no specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars were recorded. The additions were considered an 'estimate against an estimate'.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purchase of land is part of the cost of acquisition/improvement. It also held that brokerage payments, supported by confirmations and made via account payee cheques, should be allowed as expenses, especially when the AO failed to issue summons under Section 131 when requested.

The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the Section 154 application without providing an opportunity of hearing. The order was set aside to allow for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the non-compliance was unintentional and due to a communication lapse. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and documents before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that cash found at the residence, if it represents past savings of family members, cannot be treated as undisclosed income for penalty purposes. Similarly, old or inherited jewellery, not acquired from undisclosed income during the year, also does not qualify. Advances given cannot be equated with 'income' as defined under Section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purchase of land is part of the cost of acquisition/improvement. It also held that brokerage payments, supported by confirmations and made via account payee cheques, should be allowed as expenses, especially when the AO failed to issue summons under Section 131 when requested.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity and capacity of the investors. The AO had failed to conduct a 'worthwhile' enquiry and prove that the premium was unjustified or sourced from undisclosed funds.

The Tribunal held that AS-7 is not applicable to real estate developers and that the assessee had consistently followed the project completion method, which was accepted in prior years. The AO's rejection of the books and application of the percentage completion method was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D, and that the disallowances on tour, travel, and conveyance expenses were not substantiated with evidence. Therefore, these disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely on an estimated basis, especially when the Assessing Officer did not record specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The additions were considered an 'estimate against an estimate'.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions. The 'on money' was considered as settled booking advances in the Tally data and had already been accounted for as revenue in the hands of related entities and accepted by the Settlement Commission.