ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to a reasonable and bonafide cause. The assessee's explanation that they were unaware of the mandatory e-filing procedure at the time and had filed a manual appeal within the due date was accepted. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & ors. (167 ITR 0471), emphasizing that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to do substantial justice on merits. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the appeal was set aside. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Other grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed and were dismissed as such. The same reasoning was applied to the appeal for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to a reasonable and bonafide cause. The assessee's explanation that they were unaware of the mandatory e-filing procedure at the time and had filed a manual appeal within the due date was accepted. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & ors. (167 ITR 0471), emphasizing that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to do substantial justice on merits. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the appeal was set aside. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Other grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed and were dismissed as such. The same reasoning was applied to the appeal for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the assessee challenged the assessment order, not the section 263 order. Since a separate appeal against the assessment order was already pending, the present appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that providing the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment is mandatory and a prerequisite for valid reassessment proceedings. Since the reasons were not furnished to the assessee, the reassessment order is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Association's activities were primarily for the advancement of general public utility, and any business activities were incidental to this main object. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was allowable. Life membership fees were also considered capital receipts.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty order also became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO ignored the family traditions and the fact that the jewellery was 'stridhan' for the ladies of the family. Considering the family's status and customs, the excess jewellery found was nominal and explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake was inadvertent and bonafide, acting on the advice of his tax consultant. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, it was deemed not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that while credit for TDS is allowed only upon deposit by the deductor, the assessee cannot be subjected to direct demand for tax that has already been deducted from their salary, as per Section 205 of the Income Tax Act. The recovery should be pursued against the employer.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI was reversed.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 6 regarding the addition of share application money, vacating the addition based on evidence. For Ground No. 7 concerning disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal directed the AO to disallow only 30% of the sustained amount, considering the amendment to reduce hardship.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's imprisonment and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in N Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, and held that the issue of late deposit of PF/ESI contribution is covered in favour of the assessee by a previous ITAT decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. The Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the issues raised were already examined.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits by showing prior cash withdrawals from the same bank account. The Tribunal found that the AO had not substantiated the addition with material evidence and acted arbitrarily.

The Tribunal held that the assessee continuously held the land as a capital asset since its purchase with the intention of using it for a petrol pump. Merely plotting and selling the land did not convert it into stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view, which could not be revised under section 263.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already verified the claim to his satisfaction and had raised queries regarding the investment. Merely because the PCIT desired further evidence or disagreed with the AO's satisfaction, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, which disallows late ESI/PF contributions, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it is not applicable for the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that while the entire expenditure could not be disallowed as bogus, an addition at the rate of 3.5% on the amount of Rs. 3,40,11,858/- was sustained to settle the issue in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's grounds of appeal, particularly regarding the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and the admission of additional evidence, warranted a fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for a decision after considering the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the entire expenditure could not be disallowed as bogus, an addition at the rate of 3.5% on the amount of Rs. 3,40,11,858/- was sustained to settle the issue in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year 2017-18.

The Tribunal observed the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the assessee's authorized representative filed an affidavit seeking condonation of this delay. The judgment does not specify the final decision on the appeal itself, only the observation regarding the delay.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution due to a misunderstanding regarding the bench's functioning. The appeal was restored to its original stage for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the unrecorded receipts should be considered as income, not the entire receipts. It also ruled that the Rs. 14 crores offered by the assessee should be adjusted against the estimated profit, preventing double addition.

The Tribunal held that undisclosed receipts cannot be treated as undisclosed income in toto; only the profit element embedded therein is taxable as income. Furthermore, Section 69A, which deals with unexplained money, bullion, or jewelry, was found not applicable to suppressed toll receipts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made proper inquiries during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT was not justified in invoking powers under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to partners was justified as the assessee had claimed excess interest in the profit and loss account. However, the addition on account of Section 43CA was deleted due to procedural violation by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pandemic and Supreme Court guidelines. It allowed the ground related to PF/ESI contributions, reversing the CIT(A)'s order, and allowed the royalty issue for statistical purposes, remanding it for verification by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authority orders were ex-parte and that the assessee, a small taxpayer, had business receipts and capital gains that should not be taxed in gross. Interest income also could not be taxed under Section 69A.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the undisclosed bank account should be considered as turnover, and only a profit element should be added. For the capital introduced in the firm, the addition was reduced to the extent of income decided in the first ground.