ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2020

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as per the conditions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the grants given by the assessee to district cricket associations for infrastructure and equipment were a proper application of income for charitable purposes. The expenditure was not capital in nature for the assessee and directly linked to promoting cricket.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the advances were utilized for project expenditure or that such expenditure remained unrecorded. Therefore, the benefit of set-off could not be allowed for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee made a wrong claim for exemption without a bonafide explanation. The surrender of income was not considered voluntary as it was made during scrutiny assessment.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the Vivad Se Vishwas petition was accepted. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the advances were utilized for project expenditure or that such expenditure remained unrecorded. Therefore, the benefit of set-off could not be allowed for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of undisclosed investment in house furniture as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the source. The addition of Rs. 99,000/- on account of sale of furniture and electronic items was also upheld due to lack of documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot pass an order under Section 263 merely because a more thorough inquiry could have been made by the AO. The Pr. CIT must demonstrate that the AO's inquiry was not reasonable or prudent. The Pr. CIT's action was deemed to be a change of opinion and an attempt at fishing and roving inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions based solely on a "dumb document" without corroborating evidence. The notations on the seized paper were considered rough scribblings without any authenticity or connection to actual transactions by the assessee.

Regarding Ground No. 1 (Section 40A(3) disallowance), the Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Rule 6DD was valid. The Tribunal noted that the seller resided in a village without banking facilities, and the assessee provided evidence like a Sarpanch's certificate and an affidavit to support this. The Tribunal also considered the CBDT Circular No. 220 and the fact that the payment was made on a Sunday, which could fall under exceptions. The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the transaction and the identity of the seller were not disputed. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside. Regarding Ground No. 2 (Unexplained Unsecured Loans), the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans by providing confirmations, PAN details, and evidence of banking channel payments. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not established any adverse material or forged documents. Even if the creditors did not respond to Section 133(6) notices, the Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation, held that adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee solely on this ground, especially when the creditors were existing income tax assessees and the AO had not taken further steps to verify their records. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of the deduction under Section 54B. The CIT(A) did not provide a finding on the contentions raised by the assessee regarding the use of the land for agricultural purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the reopening of assessment. It also dismissed the ground related to Section 115BBE as not pressed. The addition related to an advance against property sale was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts due to the failure to produce the Quality Register, but directed the AO to apply a GP rate based on the average of the past three years. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of agricultural income was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by confirming additions without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the genuineness of the share capital and other related documents.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the unregistered agreement to sell, which was not mentioned in the registered sale deed and was executed between different parties, lacked evidentiary value. The registered sale deed, showing a consideration of Rs. 6,95,600/-, was presumed to be correct.