Loading ITAT cases…
936 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 936 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer as requested by the assessee. It also found that the addition was based on an agreement to sell, while the registered sale deed should take precedence, especially when no corroborative evidence was presented by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the AO adopted the DLC value without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. The assessee did not press the ground regarding the assessment being completed under Section 144.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer as requested by the assessee. The case was set aside to the AO for de novo verification after obtaining the valuation report.
The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding Ground No. 1, the assessee did not press the ground concerning the completion of assessment under Section 144 and violation of natural justice, thus it was dismissed as not pressed. Concerning Ground No. 2, the Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the assessee's submission regarding the distress sale and the request to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under Section 144 did not provide clarity on whether the stock at the Madrampura factory was considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide an adequate opportunity for the assessee to present submissions on both legal and factual aspects. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the stock shortage, the Tribunal observed that the ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 lacked clarity on whether stock at the Madrampura factory was considered. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to verify stock records, including inventory at the Madrampura factory, and compute the correct valuation of stock, making any addition only after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This ground was also allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal was disposed of as it covered low tax effect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not press Ground No. 1, which challenged the assessment under Section 144 on grounds of violation of natural justice. Therefore, Ground No. 1 was dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 2(a), (b), and (c), which pertained to the addition of Rs. 58,88,857 as long-term capital gain and the application of Section 50C, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 52,00,000. The AO, however, adopted the DLC value of Rs. 90,06,776. The assessee contended it was a distress sale due to her husband's debt and requested a reference to the Valuation Officer. The AO did not accept these submissions and made the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal's decision on these grounds is not fully provided in the excerpt. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were heard together due to common issues. The operative part of the decision regarding the specific grounds of appeal for Smt. Suman Katta is not fully detailed in the provided text, but the initial grounds concerning the assessment procedure and capital gains are presented.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For Smt. Suman Katta (Ground No. 1): The assessee did not press this ground, so it was dismissed as not pressed. For Smt. Suman Katta (Ground No. 2): The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte and the legal contention regarding the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to present submissions on both legal and factual aspects. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. For Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd. (Ground No. 3): The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 and lacked clarity on whether stock at the Madrampura factory was considered. Given the factual position, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to verify stock records, including inventory at the Madrampura factory, and compute the correct stock valuation. Any addition was to be made after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. For Shri Satish Chandra Katta (Revenue Appeal ITA No. 352/JPR/2018): The appeal was filed by the Revenue and was noted to be under low tax effect. Therefore, it was not adjudicated and disposed of accordingly. Operative Directions: The matters concerning Smt. Suman Katta and Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd. were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO adopted the DLC value without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. The assessee did not press the ground regarding the assessment being completed under Section 144.
The Tribunal held that the additions made for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 were not sustainable. The primary issue revolved around the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted that assessments for both years were completed before the search on 31.07.2012, as the time limits for issuing notices under Section 143(2) had expired. Crucially, the AO's assessment orders themselves stated that no material or document belonging to the assessee for these years was found or seized during the search. Following the Supreme Court decisions in Sinhgad Technical Education Society and UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material, no additions can be made under Section 153C for assessments that were already completed as of the date of the search. Consequently, the additions made for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 were found to be unsustainable. The issues concerning the disallowance of business loss, addition of short-term capital gains, and the invocation of Section 50C were rendered moot by the primary finding on the validity of the Section 153C proceedings. The Tribunal directed that the decision in ITA No. 622/JPR/2019 would apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 623/JPR/2019.
The Tribunal noted that the AO adopted the DLC value without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. The assessee did not press the ground regarding the assessment being completed under Section 144.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the property valuation to the DVO as requested by the assessee. The addition based on the rough paper was also questioned as a loan itself does not constitute income.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed without due consideration of the assessee's submissions and violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had taken a firm view against a related party, making simultaneous proceedings against the assessee unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the additions made for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 were not sustainable. The primary issue revolved around the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted that assessments for both years were completed before the search on 31.07.2012, as the time limits for issuing notices under Section 143(2) had expired. Crucially, the AO's assessment orders themselves stated that no material or document belonging to the assessee for these years was found or seized during the search. Following the Supreme Court decisions in Sinhgad Technical Education Society and UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material, no additions can be made under Section 153C for assessments that were already completed as of the date of the search. Consequently, the additions made for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 were found to be unsustainable. The issues concerning the disallowance of business loss, addition of short-term capital gains, and the invocation of Section 50C were rendered moot by the primary finding on the validity of the Section 153C proceedings. The Tribunal directed that the decision in ITA No. 622/JPR/2019 would apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 623/JPR/2019.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, Smt. Suman Katta, did not press Ground No. 1 concerning the assessment under Section 144. Regarding the dispute over the sale consideration of a property, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had requested a reference to the Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Act. The AO did not refer the matter to the DVO and instead adopted the DLC value. The CIT(A) confirmed this action. The Tribunal found that the AO's failure to refer the matter to the DVO, despite a specific request and the provisions of Section 50C(2), was an error. The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the AO to refer the property for valuation to the DVO. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue of capital gains after obtaining the DVO's report. For other additions concerning unexplained income, loans, and estimated income, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not provided sufficient evidence or explanations before the lower authorities. Therefore, these additions were confirmed. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of not providing cross-examination was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 1, concerning the completion of assessment under Section 144, was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee's authorized representative. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 52,00,000, but the AO adopted the DLC value of Rs. 90,06,776. The assessee claimed it was a distress sale due to her husband's debt and requested a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2). The AO did not make this reference and added the difference of Rs. 38,06,776. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal, in its reasoning, did not explicitly state a finding on the distress sale argument or the failure to refer to the DVO in the provided excerpt. However, the operative part of the order for this specific appeal is not detailed in the provided text, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance or remand for some appeals.
The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding Ground No. 1, the assessee did not press the ground concerning the completion of assessment under Section 144 and violation of natural justice, thus it was dismissed as not pressed. Concerning Ground No. 2, the Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the assessee's submission regarding the distress sale and the request to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under Section 144 did not provide clarity on whether the stock at the Madrampura factory was considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide an adequate opportunity for the assessee to present submissions on both legal and factual aspects. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the stock shortage, the Tribunal observed that the ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 lacked clarity on whether stock at the Madrampura factory was considered. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to verify stock records, including inventory at the Madrampura factory, and compute the correct valuation of stock, making any addition only after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This ground was also allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal was disposed of as it covered low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support the claim that the statement was given under pressure. Relying on the seized documents and the admission made by the assessee, the addition of Rs. 55 lakhs as undisclosed income was considered correct.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- (related to AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, but the principle applies to the Rs. 55,00,000/- issue in AY 2012-13 as well) was purely based on the assessee's statement recorded during the search, which the assessee had subsequently retracted. The Tribunal noted that no supporting evidence or documents were found by the search team to substantiate the unaccounted investment. Following the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s. Esspal International P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no addition can be made merely on the basis of a retracted statement without corroborative evidence. The Court's decision emphasized that an admission by the assessee cannot be conclusive evidence in the absence of supporting material. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. As the appeal was decided on merits, other technical grounds became educative. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus by providing confirmations, PAN details, and bank statements of the lenders, which demonstrated the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue solely because the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which established that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and that the failure of the AO to record an opinion on the leviability of penalty does not automatically render the assessment order flawed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support the claim that the statement was given under pressure. Relying on the seized documents and the admission made by the assessee, the addition of Rs. 55 lakhs as undisclosed income was considered correct.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment under Section 69, and thus Section 115BBE is not applicable. The PCIT's order to treat it as unexplained investment was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- (related to AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, but the principle applies to the Rs. 55,00,000/- issue in AY 2012-13 as well) was purely based on the assessee's statement recorded during the search, which the assessee had subsequently retracted. The Tribunal noted that no supporting evidence or documents were found by the search team to substantiate the unaccounted investment. Following the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s. Esspal International P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no addition can be made merely on the basis of a retracted statement without corroborative evidence. The Court's decision emphasized that an admission by the assessee cannot be conclusive evidence in the absence of supporting material. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. As the appeal was decided on merits, other technical grounds became educative. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was tenable as the assessee failed to produce any contrary decision to the binding precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court. The decision of the High Court was considered to be applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the issues required verification by the AO. The assessee also claimed a lack of proper opportunity to be heard regarding expenditure disallowances. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh inquiry.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prior non-compliance but considered the evidence presented regarding the business of trading Kota Stones. Referencing Section 44AD of the Act, the tribunal applied an 8% net profit rate on the total deposit.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to reject the books of account with proper reasons and evidence. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be a copy-paste of the AO's order without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had considered the assessee's explanations and made a finding, which could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue without pinpointing specific errors. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 powers was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had considered the assessee's explanations and made a finding, which could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue without pinpointing specific errors. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 powers was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided substantial proofs for the source of investment, including sale proceeds from property, which were not considered by the AO. The tribunal found the AO's remand report to be factually incorrect and the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's reliance on certain precedents was misplaced and that the trust's objects were not exclusively for a particular religious community. The matter was restored to the CIT for reconsideration.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO or the CIT(A) for hearings. Considering this, the tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, but directed them not to seek adjournments.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if no settlement was reached under the scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeals, citing the decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal further noted that the reasons for rejection by the CIT(E) were curable and that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E).