ITAT Jaipur Judgments — December 2023

The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of justice as the appeal was dismissed without a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, taking a liberal approach due to technical glitches and the charitable nature of the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to pinpoint any defects in the assessee's books of accounts, quantitative records, cash book, or invoices. The Tribunal found that the sales were genuine, supported by invoices, and generated from existing stock, thus deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by comparing toll receipts with toll payments. The reconciliation showed that the amounts in Form 26AS represented payments made by the assessee on which TCS was deducted, and these payments were reconciled with the assessee's books.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, with a caution against frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting cash due to a cheque dishonor and the limited banking facility in their village. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the potential negligence of the counsel. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. It held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the matter should be adjudicated afresh by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 27C was a technical breach and condonable, citing High Court and ITAT decisions. For interest payments, the Tribunal allowed an opportunity to furnish a certificate from an accountant under the proviso to section 201(1).

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 27C was a technical breach and condonable, citing High Court and ITAT decisions. For interest payments, the Tribunal allowed an opportunity to furnish a certificate from an accountant under the proviso to section 201(1).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for accepting the cash loan and that the transaction was a violation of Section 269SS. The penalty levied under Section 271D was upheld, but the limitation period argument was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is in accordance with law, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The appeal related to Section 154 was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 27C was a technical breach that could be condoned, especially when the buyer had filed their return and accounted for the income. For interest payments, the assessee was given an opportunity to furnish a certificate from an accountant.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is in accordance with law, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The appeal related to Section 154 was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A) and submit necessary replies. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of one day in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not carrying on a banking business and does not require a license. The interest paid was expended wholly and exclusively for earning the interest income, and similar claims were allowed in previous years.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO failed to consider the assessee's revised return which already disallowed the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The addition made by the AO was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh consideration. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, considering principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 143(1) for late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI was justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The Tribunal found that such adjustments under Section 143(1) are within the scope of the AO's powers.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's grievance that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to contest the case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 143(1) for late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI was justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The Tribunal found that such adjustments under Section 143(1) are within the scope of the AO's powers.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit the required details. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for both applications.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 803 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit the required details. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for both applications.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's grievance regarding the denial of adequate opportunity to be heard and the potential violation of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) is valid and that the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is equally applicable to intimations under section 143(1). The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions were not acceptable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's plea of communication gap and lack of proper opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on term deposits, which were utilized to obtain an overdraft facility for providing credit to members, is attributable to the society's business activities. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal found that there was no proof of service of the notice under Section 142(1) on the assessee. Since the assessee could not comply with a notice that was not served, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s action of confirming half the addition without clear logic to be unjustified. Considering the assessee's claims of agricultural and welding income, and that the assessment was ex-parte, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits, and the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the lower authorities were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The books of accounts were not rejected, and no defects were found, making the addition unsustainable solely on the director's statement.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO failed to appreciate the assessee's role as a collection agent and ignored corresponding debits and inquiries. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the source of cash deposits was explained by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54B, the period for investment should be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration when capital asset is converted into stock-in-trade. The Tribunal noted that a similar claim was allowed in the preceding assessment year.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C are void ab initio if no incriminating material is found during the search. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C are void ab initio if no incriminating material is found during the search. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C are void ab initio if no incriminating material is found during the search. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to establish proper service of notices and that the assessee may not have had a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of a proper hearing before the CIT(A) due to the COVID period and short notice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire 'on money' was not justifiable as the property was jointly purchased by multiple parties. The assessee's proportionate share was sustained by the CIT(A), but the Tribunal deleted this amount, considering the revenue's acceptance of explanations from other co-purchasers.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee was deprived of an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 & 2 (Earnest advance and reference to Valuation Officer): The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim regarding the earnest advance and the need for reference to the Valuation Officer was not adequately addressed by the lower authorities. The NFAC's observation that the assessee did not show evidence of claiming a reference to the Valuation Officer before the AO was noted. However, the Tribunal's detailed reasoning on these points is not fully elaborated in the provided text, but it appears to have considered the assessee's arguments regarding the earnest advance and the adverse traits. The judgment does not explicitly state a finding on whether the earnest advance should have been considered or if a reference to the DVO was mandatory, but it does allow Ground No. 6, which pertains to Section 54 exemption. Issue 3 (FMV as on 01.04.1981): The Tribunal noted the NFAC's finding that the AO adopted a fair market value based on comparable sale instances of nearby properties, and the NFAC found no reason to interfere with the AO's finding. The Tribunal's specific holding on this issue is not explicitly detailed, but it seems to have upheld the NFAC's decision based on the AO's reasoning. Issue 4 (Section 54 Exemption): The Tribunal held that the benefit under Section 54 of the Act cannot be denied merely because the investment was made in the name of the assessee's wife. It cited the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mahadev Balai vs. ITO, which held that the word 'assessee' investing does not necessarily mean it has to be in the assessee's own name, and investment in the name of the spouse is permissible. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54 for the investment made in the name of the wife. This ground (Ground No. 6) was allowed. Operative Directions: The AO is directed to allow the deduction under Section 54 of the Act as claimed for the investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits due to the assessee's lack of vigilance and non-response to notices. However, the Tribunal felt it imperative to provide the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.