ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the grounds of appeal or the specific evidence supporting the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that agricultural land outside municipal limits is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, Section 56(2)(viib) cannot be invoked for such land.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is applicable only for credit entries made during the year under consideration. In this case, the amount in question was a brought-forward opening balance from a preceding year and not a new credit entry during the current year, nor was it received through any banking channel.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to credit for the TDS deducted under Section 194Q of the Act. The reasoning was that the assessee acts as a Kaccha Arhtia (commission agent) and its business model involves purchasing goods on behalf of its principal, raising invoices to the principal buyer for the same amount, and issuing 'vikray parchi' to farmers. The TDS under Section 194Q was deducted by the principal buyer on these transactions. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee's turnover is only the commission earned, not the purchase and sale value of goods transacted on behalf of principals. It cited CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986, which states that for Kachcha Aratias, turnover does not include sales effected on behalf of principals. Therefore, the assessee is not required to disclose the turnover appearing in the tax deduction details under Section 194Q as it is not their effective turnover. The Tribunal also found no merit in the lower authorities' observation regarding Section 194J, as it is not applicable. The appeal was allowed, granting credit for the TDS deducted under Section 194Q.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a bona fide belief that the 80G application would be reconsidered after obtaining 12AB registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was on an estimated basis. Relying on various High Court decisions, it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely on estimates. Additionally, the show cause notice was found to be vague, as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal acknowledged that notices were issued to the assessee, but they were sent to the email address provided by the previous AR. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission, supported by an affidavit from the previous AR, that due to preoccupation with CMA exams, the AR could not attend to the notices or inform the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the negligent act of its AR. It was concluded that the assessee was deprived of natural justice before the CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication de novo, with liberty to the CIT(E) to take appropriate action if the assessee fails to cooperate in the remanded proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and relying on Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was based on a receipts and payments account instead of an income and expenditure account.

The Tribunal held that the claim for FTC is not solely controlled by the delay in filing Form 67. The Tribunal referred to coordinate bench decisions which held that the claim of FTC cannot be denied merely on account of delay in filing Form 67. The Assessing Officer was directed to take cognizance of the filed Form 67 and grant FTC as admissible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and relying on Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was based on a receipts and payments account instead of an income and expenditure account.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in observing that there was no need to add the amount again as income from business or profession when the assessee had already treated it as income from house properties. The Department failed to provide material to support its claim.

The Tribunal held that the issue of sales totaling Rs. 3,07,811/- needs verification by the AO, and the profit margin should be considered at 12%. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to properly file its return of income, specifically regarding the claim for deduction under Section 80P. The failure to correctly fill the relevant schedules in the e-filed return was a procedural lapse that led to the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the burden of proof and that Section 69A and Section 115BBE were not applicable as the cash deposits were out of business sales duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal found no defects in the books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for the new tax regime due to late filing of the return and Form 10-IE. However, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO to examine the claims for deductions under the old scheme after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 73,17,000/- on account of cash deposits was to be deleted as the assessee had recorded these transactions in his books of account, and the source of deposits was established. However, the addition for household expenses was partly confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately adjudicated the issues, particularly concerning additional evidence and the exact amount of interest income. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately adjudicated the issues, particularly concerning additional evidence and the exact amount of interest income. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, citing a previous ITAT decision that permits admission if it enables the Tribunal to pass an order or for substantial cause. The Tribunal decided to verify the documents with the AO to provide justice to the parties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's grounds, particularly regarding his non-resident status and the source of funds. The Tribunal found that crucial aspects were not addressed.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on assumptions and guesswork without sufficient material evidence. Relying on coordinate bench judgments, it was found that the assessee's explanation of using earlier cash withdrawals for deposits was plausible, especially when the source of withdrawals was explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, specifically regarding video conferencing access. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the AO failed to specify under which clause of Section 270A(9) the assessee's case fell and did not record independent satisfaction. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee acted under a bonafide belief and the issues were debatable.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited by the assessee could not be taxed under Section 69A as the commission arising from the services rendered was already taxed. The evidence on record, including Form 26AS and bank statements, indicated that the assessee was engaged in genuine business activities.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element on the unaccounted sales should be taxed, not the entire sales value. It also considered other unaccounted sales previously sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the AO failed to specify under which clause of Section 270A(9) the assessee's case fell and did not record independent satisfaction. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee acted under a bonafide belief and the issues were debatable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the assessee has voluntarily disclosed the income and paid the tax, and the AO has accepted the same in the assessment order. The initiation of penalty proceedings must be based on a deliberate act of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements, including that of the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was erroneous. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 147 and 144B of the Act. The AO had called for details regarding capital gains, and after receiving them, framed the assessment. The Tribunal found no evidence that the AO did not conduct proper inquiries or verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to submit the necessary information and documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to submit the necessary information and documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of gross profit should be based on the average GP rate of the assessee's own previous years, which was found to be 12.81%. This rate was directed to be applied instead of the 30% estimated by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was lethargic in pursuing its case and imposed a cost. However, to provide one more opportunity, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of gross profit should be based on the average GP rate of the assessee's own previous years, which was found to be 12.81%. This rate was directed to be applied instead of the 30% estimated by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not claimed depreciation on assets yielding rental income and had added back the full depreciation amount in the computation of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's return was filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4) and that the CPC took a hyper-technical view by taxing gross receipts instead of surplus income. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT Chennai decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the issue and that the assessee had failed to provide adequate opportunity or documentary evidence during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional coordinate bench's decision on identical facts regarding trading additions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's additional ground of appeal concerning transactions with a related party. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found the marginal decline in GP to be justified due to increased turnover and ordered the deletion of the sustained addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 due to a jurisdictional error, specifically the lack of proper application of mind and satisfaction by the approving authorities under Section 151. Consequently, the penalty order was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 148 without sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's submission that cash deposits were out of cash withdrawals and allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as party-wise details of cash sales and proper maintenance of books of accounts, to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses for practical training was not justified, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. It also noted that the withdrawal of registration and approval had not attained finality, impacting the claim for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional coordinate bench's decision on identical facts regarding trading additions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's additional ground of appeal concerning transactions with a related party. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found the marginal decline in GP to be justified due to increased turnover and ordered the deletion of the sustained addition.

The Tribunal held that the amount shown as balance receivable could not be presumed as income received, as it represented amounts not yet received and related to potential construction plans that were later dropped. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that this amount was never received and thus could not be taxed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found in this case, the additions made by the AO were not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without appreciating the facts of the case.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after issuing a show cause notice and granting a personal hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 549 days due to bonafide reasons. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition of expenses at a flat rate of 20% without proper justification or consideration of past trading history was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal applied a Net Profit (NP) rate of 2.5% to the total receipts.