ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee as reasonable. The Tribunal held that the requirement of paying tax before filing an appeal under Section 249(4) is directory, not mandatory, and that payment made later rectifies the defect.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts on flimsy grounds and that the NP rate applied was not appropriate given increased expenditures. Regarding Section 69 additions, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining part of the addition without considering the assessee's expertise and potential savings, and also failed to consider payments made after construction completion.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the matter.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the matter.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding the denial of exemption and the disallowance of expenses. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that additions made purely on an estimation basis, especially when the assessee's declared gross profit was higher, do not attract Section 271(1)(c) as it cannot be considered concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly invoked Section 154 of the Act. Rectification is only permissible for mistakes apparent from the record, not for re-examining or denying a benefit already held allowable by the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee as reasonable. The Tribunal held that the requirement of paying tax before filing an appeal under Section 249(4) is directory, not mandatory, and that payment made later rectifies the defect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries regarding the source of investment and accepted the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the PCIT was incorrect in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that explained jewellery, supported by purchase bills, should not be considered part of the reasonable possession limit. Regarding the undisclosed receipts, the Tribunal found that the seized document pertained to the assessee's son, who had also explained the entries, and therefore, the addition in the assessee's hands was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the claim for deduction under Section 54F, particularly regarding the nature of the construction and whether it constituted a residential house. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the PCIT under Section 263 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO, having become functus officio after completing the original assessment, could not unilaterally convert a protective addition to a substantive one without reassuming jurisdiction under relevant sections of the Act. The AO's action lacked legal sanction.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to provide any evidence to controvert the findings of the lower authorities regarding the unexplained cash deposit.

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is applicable because the sale deeds were registered after April 1, 2013, and the full sale consideration was not received through an account payee cheque at the time of the agreement. The benefit of a prior agreement under Section 43CA(3) requires consideration to be received via account payee instruments.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of applying the average GP of three years, including the current year, was flawed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the reasons for the decline in GP due to market conditions and the assessee's specific circumstances.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings. Since no sufficient cause was provided for the delay, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that agricultural land is not a property as defined under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and therefore, the provisions of the said section are not applicable. The addition made by the AO was consequently deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in exercising his powers under Section 263 as the AO failed to comply with the ITAT's directions. The benefit of the proviso to Section 12A(2) was not available to the assessee for the assessment year preceding the registration due to amendments in the trust's constitution.

The Tribunal held that the property sold was not a residential house, thus not satisfying the basic condition for Section 54 exemption. However, the matter of cost of construction was set aside to the AO for verification of disclosed costs in audited financial statements.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, sustaining an addition of Rs. 187,215/- as unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal adjusted the figures for drawings and opening cash balance based on its own reasoning.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in agricultural and dairy activities, predominantly transacts in cash. Considering the net cash receipts from these activities and the cash available at the beginning of the financial year, the source of the car purchase payment was sufficiently explained.