ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. On the issue of bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) under section 10(38), the Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material. The assessee had provided relevant material to substantiate the genuineness of share transactions. Relying on the decisions in CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal and PCIT vs. Pramod Jain & Others, and considering the documentary evidence produced by the assessee and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and deleted the addition. Consequently, the addition on account of notional commission paid under section 69C was also deleted as it was consequential. Regarding the addition under section 14A, the Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not brought any material to controvert the assessee's submission that no administrative expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance under section 14A was also deleted. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside for both assessment years.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and lack of submissions supporting their grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal decided the appeal based on the available records without entertaining an adjournment request.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT (Exemption). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not submit adequate documents before the lower authorities despite opportunities. To ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not submit proper documents before the lower authorities despite opportunities. To safeguard the assessee's interest, the appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted a recent CBDT notification revising the exemption limit for leave encashment. Since the assessee's claim was below this revised limit, the AO was directed to allow the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the authenticity of the purchase deed and provide supporting bank account details. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the short notice period. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.