ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the medical reasons submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, giving the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for the delay.

The Tribunal observed that the delay was not deliberate and was due to a genuine mistake. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issue on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not valid as it was issued by an officer without jurisdiction and was also time-barred. The assessment framed on the basis of such a notice was consequently quashed. Regarding the addition on account of trading, the Tribunal confirmed the rejection of books of account but directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the profit at an average rate of 2.01% based on the past three years' history, considering the assessee's disclosed profit.

The Tribunal held that for completed and unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found concerning the Dharmada/charity ledger for the assessment year in question, the addition made by the AO was deemed illegal. The reliance on the Apex Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was found to be squarely applicable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case and without specific findings. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal as the assessee failed to make submissions or produce evidence. The tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the assessee for lethargic action.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned by the CIT(A) in the past, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more chance to contest the case before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the assessee's affidavit explaining the reasons. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not file submissions or evidence. However, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after noting merit in the assessee's applications and affidavits. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. However, a cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for lethargic action.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the appeal, as evidenced by their conduct. However, considering the prayer for one more opportunity, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not sufficient. It was observed that the assessee was negligent in following up with their counsel and tracking the appeal proceedings. While acknowledging the difficulty faced by the assessee, the Tribunal referred to various case laws regarding condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed submissions or evidence before the CIT(A). While the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's action, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person, when the AO is aware of the death and has not brought the legal heirs on record, is void ab initio and not merely a procedural irregularity. The service of notice under Section 148 was deemed invalid as it was not served on the legal heirs.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 263 by the PCIT were based solely on an audit objection and lacked independent application of mind. The Tribunal further noted that the PCIT failed to demonstrate any apparent error in the AO's order or that it was prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings were considered illegal and bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to the difference in sales. The assessee provided documentary evidence and a reconciliation statement which the AO failed to examine. Similarly, for the unsecured loans, the assessee provided confirmation letters, ITRs, and bank statements, discharging the onus of proof, and the AO did not disprove these documents.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding that the cash deposits were explained by cash sales duly recorded in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents stating that cash sales cannot be treated as undisclosed income and that additions cannot be made again if the sales are recorded and accepted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of construction cost using reverse indexation was not in accordance with the law. Considering the unavailability of the original construction for verification and the lack of scientific basis for the AO's estimation, the Tribunal used the valuation report of an approved valuer as a guiding factor. The AO was directed to consider the cost of construction at Rs. 3,86,000, distributed equally between FY 1982-83 and 1983-84.