ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated the source of the cash deposits through bank withdrawals and that the revenue had not proven the cash was utilized for other purposes. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was vacated.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of the correct assessment year for the penalty levy was pending before the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue of penalty levy comprehensively, considering both assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year. This previous order had nullified the AO's order, making the current appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the difference in stock was negligible or due to valuation differences, not attracting provisions of Section 69 or 69A. Therefore, Section 115BBE was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's non-prosecution and non-appearance before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A needed to be recomputed by the AO after verifying the investments made from interest-free funds. The Tribunal also directed verification of interest disallowance related to partnership firm investments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's non-prosecution and non-appearance before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's non-prosecution and non-appearance before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following the precedent of the ITAT Mumbai Bench, held that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice. It directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically and the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the CESTAT's order, which had already determined that the basis of the AO's addition was not sustainable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It also restricted the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to Rs. 10,000/-, considering it a deterrent and not a revenue-generating measure, and quashed the penalty on two notices that were not properly served.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee has an obligation to cooperate, the CIT(A) should have communicated the rejection of the adjournment request. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A needed to be recomputed by the AO after verifying the investments made from interest-free funds. The Tribunal also directed verification of interest disallowance related to partnership firm investments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee was deprived of submitting arguments before the AO and CIT(A) due to lack of compliance. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to contest the case before the AO, who was directed to make a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) may not have considered the adjournment application and the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not in the nature of enduring benefit but was a day-to-day routine expenditure of a revenue nature. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was not justified as the cash sales were recorded in the assessee's audited books of accounts and supported by sales invoices. The AO had not rejected the books of account, and the cash deposited was part of sales accepted by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a work order for a military project, and the revenue failed to prove the work was not carried out. Therefore, the addition of the entire receipt was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee fails to maintain books of accounts as per Section 44AA, the default is complete. Consequently, there cannot be a further default for not getting those non-existent books audited under Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B is not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the assessee's approach to be negligent and irresponsible, and therefore, the delay could not be condoned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting ('Project Completion Method') was regularly followed and had been accepted in the assessee's own case by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, the AO was directed to consider the closing stock based on the assessee's books and not the recast accounts.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed orders ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The CIT(A) had upheld the addition of Rs. 9,14,285/- as STCG, stating that the assessee failed to submit evidence to prove she was merely a POA holder and that the sale consideration was transferred to the actual sellers. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not pass the order on merits and that the assessee, before the Tribunal, submitted evidence including an affidavit from the actual owner confirming receipt of sale proceeds. The Tribunal found that the addition made in the hands of the POA holder was erroneous and unfair, violating the principles of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for proper adjudication on merits, after giving the assessee a due opportunity of hearing, uninfluenced by the earlier decisions. The assessee was directed to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view and conducted the required enquiry. The revision order under Section 263 was vacated as the assessment order was not deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that the quantum appeal was pending and the assessee was deprived of justice due to technical latches. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for delay without deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of explaining the expenditure and its source. The lower authorities failed to consider the cash withdrawals made by the assessee after the marriage date as utilized for payment of dues.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay due to non-receipt of notices. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not based on the facts of the assessee's case and that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash deposits, including withdrawals from bank accounts and gifts. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had sustained an addition of Rs. 1.00 lac in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty should be recomputed based on this sustained addition.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that notices were not served at the specified address. The matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits was against the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was without jurisdiction. This was because the original assessment order had merged with the order of the CIT(A), rendering the PCIT's revisional power inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee purchased the land on 11.10.2007 and sold the property on 02.12.2008, providing approximately 14-15 months for construction. Considering the assessee is a lady and the assessment was initiated after 6 years, it was understandable that she might not have retained all bills and vouchers for construction costs. To substantiate these costs, she obtained a report from an approved valuer. The Tribunal noted that the valuer had appeared before the AO, satisfactorily explained his valuation report, and answered the queries raised. The AO's doubts were based on technical aspects of the valuation, which the AO did not substantiate. The Tribunal found the AO's approach of discarding the expert's report without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer to be incorrect. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was considered improper, without basis, and not supported by contrary evidence to disprove the valuer's report. Therefore, the adjustment made by the lower authorities was quashed, and the addition was deleted. Both grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the entire suppressed sales cannot be added as undisclosed income; only the profit embedded in such sales should be taxed. The addition should be computed at the net profit rate.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the income from Form 26AS against the subsequent year's filings and to verify the donation proof, allowing the deduction if substantiated. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/- as declared profit was justified and should be allowed. The AO had not allowed this set-off, despite the assessee having declared and paid tax on this amount in AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the figure of Rs. 87,20,000/- represented the profit element from the cheque component of the registry value, against which the assessee had already declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,17,18,879/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/-. Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. Regarding the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The specific additions deleted by the CIT(A) and challenged by the Revenue were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/- as declared profit was justified and should be allowed. The AO had not allowed this set-off, despite the assessee having declared and paid tax on this amount in AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the figure of Rs. 87,20,000/- represented the profit element from the cheque component of the registry value, against which the assessee had already declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,17,18,879/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/-. Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. Regarding the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The specific additions deleted by the CIT(A) and challenged by the Revenue were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/- as declared profit was justified and should be allowed. The AO had not allowed this set-off, despite the assessee having declared and paid tax on this amount in AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the figure of Rs. 87,20,000/- represented the profit element from the cheque component of the registry value, against which the assessee had already declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,17,18,879/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/-. Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. Regarding the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The specific additions deleted by the CIT(A) and challenged by the Revenue were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/- as declared profit was justified and should be allowed. The AO had not allowed this set-off, despite the assessee having declared and paid tax on this amount in AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the figure of Rs. 87,20,000/- represented the profit element from the cheque component of the registry value, against which the assessee had already declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,17,18,879/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/-. Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. Regarding the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The specific additions deleted by the CIT(A) and challenged by the Revenue were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete them.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 after four years from the end of the assessment year was bad in law and without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari (supra) and other judicial pronouncements. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were found to be identical to the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari, where reassessment proceedings were quashed. The Tribunal noted that no tangible material was placed on record to support the AO's action warranting reopening, and the unsubstantiated material from a diary in the possession of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta could not be considered conclusive evidence against the assessee without further inquiry. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed. Since the reassessment orders were quashed, other grounds raised by the assessees became infructuous. The appeals of both assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when proceedings under Section 153C/153A were the appropriate course of action. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these invalid proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/- as declared profit was justified and should be allowed. The AO had not allowed this set-off, despite the assessee having declared and paid tax on this amount in AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the figure of Rs. 87,20,000/- represented the profit element from the cheque component of the registry value, against which the assessee had already declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,17,18,879/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of Rs. 1,17,16,000/-. Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. Regarding the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The specific additions deleted by the CIT(A) and challenged by the Revenue were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete them.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to establish a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The seized diary entries were not considered conclusive evidence without further corroboration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer failed to establish the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly.