ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination on merits, with a direction to the assessee to provide documentary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A) which had applied 10% of the total cash deposit as commission income, following a precedent. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order confirmed the appeal was against the penalty order, but the findings within the order related to quantum proceedings and lacked any findings on the penalty order itself. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. However, the appeal was dismissed on merits as the assessee failed to provide relevant details during assessment proceedings and the income assessed was above the exemption limit.

The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution. Employee's contribution, if not deposited by the due date as per the respective acts, is not eligible for deduction, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The disallowances were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act do not apply to employee's contributions to PF/ESI. The due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is crucial for determining deductibility. Therefore, late payments are not deductible.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Citing precedent, the Tribunal directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically and the CIT(A) to decide it on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, solely on the ground of non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding Section 50C, finding it arose from the lower authorities' orders. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance with repeated notices from the CIT(A), the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal observed that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals due to their inaction and carelessness. Consequently, the appeals were deemed infructuous.

The Tribunal held that Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, is a government organization based on Gazette Notifications and office orders. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to full exemption for earned leave encashment on retirement.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order did not specify the provision under which the addition was made, the AO could not invoke Section 154 to apply Section 115BBE. The action of charging tax under Section 115BBE through a Section 154 proceeding was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that TDS and TCS are not covered under Section 43B. Furthermore, since the payments were made before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance could be made under Section 43B or Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deemed in default under Section 201(1) if the recipient has filed its return of income and paid the tax due. The CIT(A) correctly accepted the Form 26A as substantial compliance, despite it not being filed before the AO, as the order was passed before the due date for filing the recipient's return.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exhibition expenses in the year the TDS was paid, granting consequential relief. However, the grounds related to Section 80IB deduction were dismissed, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and found it necessary to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the submissions and verify the additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal also considered the grounds of appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 13,80,000/- made under Section 68 of the IT Act.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially those involving retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. The disallowance made by the CPC was therefore considered illegal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report due to a genuine technical issue. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's order was found to be vague in this regard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the purchase and dematerialization of shares to justify the claim under Section 10(38). Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deemed in default under Section 201(1) if the recipient has filed its return of income and paid the tax due. The CIT(A) correctly accepted the Form 26A as substantial compliance, despite it not being filed before the AO, as the order was passed before the due date for filing the recipient's return.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made sufficient efforts to establish the creditworthiness of the creditor by providing past financial details. The genuineness of the transaction was also proven from the creditor's bank statement, and the department failed to controvert the evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited on or before the due date as per the respective Acts, is not allowable as a deduction. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds in the form of capital and interest-free loans/creditors, then advances to associate concerns cannot be considered as coming from borrowed money. Therefore, disallowance of interest under Section 37(1) is not warranted in such cases.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271B cannot be imposed if the assessee has not maintained books of account. In such cases, penalty should be for non-maintenance of books under section 271A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation, supported by affidavits from himself and witnesses, could not be summarily rejected without contrary material. The affidavits, duly notarized, hold legal identity and should be accepted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not justified when no books of accounts were maintained, as the default of non-maintenance is complete. The penalty was deleted based on High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish any violation of board circulars or provide contrary evidence to disallow the expenses. The AO's disallowance was based on presumption and assumption, not on concrete material. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for not responding to notices due to extensions granted by the Supreme Court and TOLA. Since the assessee was subsequently granted registration under amended provisions and there were no adverse observations, the rejection order was vacated.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Assessee's appeal was also dismissed, with the Tribunal confirming the CIT(A)'s decision on the grounds raised, including the treatment of capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim, noting that the assessee had provided affidavits from the contractor and sources of funds, and that building plan approval and property tax receipts were not required in this case.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to e-notices being sent to a terminated CA. It also held that disallowance of expenses does not per se amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, citing established case law.

The Tribunal noted that the initial appeal was decided on a technical ground, but the order was recalled. The issue of capital gains and deduction under Section 54 needs to be decided on merits, considering the specific facts and the valuation of the property.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the cash deposits and the claimed cash sales were not supported by verifiable evidence and appeared to be concocted. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to produce crucial documents like the franchisee agreement and purchase bills.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, and set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that invoking Section 115BBE at a higher rate was not in accordance with the law for income declared during a search operation prior to the amendment. The additions made by the AO were not justified in this context.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Grounds related to the reopening of assessment and sanction for notice were dismissed as they were not raised before the CIT(A). The addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that invoking Section 115BBE at a higher rate was not in accordance with the law for income declared during a search operation prior to the amendment. The additions made by the AO were not justified in this context.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to verify expenditure claims against the Rs. 12,95,311/- addition. The addition of Rs. 1,26,459/- was sustained as the assessee had agreed to it earlier.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the lower authorities was outside the purview of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the addition made was deleted.