ITAT Jaipur Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a thorough inquiry to ascertain the true facts regarding the bank accounts and transactions. The AO failed to summon concerned parties or report the matter to investigating agencies.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a thorough inquiry to ascertain the true facts regarding the bank accounts and transactions. The AO failed to summon concerned parties or report the matter to investigating agencies.

The Tribunal held that electricity duty collected by the assessee from consumers and adjusted against subsidies payable by the State Government is not covered under Section 43B. The Tribunal also noted that the disallowance of unpaid interest was confirmed by the CIT(A) based on the loan being advanced by the State Government.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans and advances available with the assessee as on April 1, 2011, should be considered. The AO was directed to reframe any addition after giving credit for this opening balance, thereby allowing Ground No. 1. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal ruled that interest income should be taxed on a cash basis if not actually received, following the Gauhati High Court's decision in N.R. Sirkar Vs. CIT. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 48,000 for alleged interest income was directed to be deleted, allowing Ground No. 2. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a working showing available balances for making the interest payment of Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal clarified that the opening balance from the diary should be allowed credit, unexplained principal amounts checked thereafter, and net interest income/expenditure verified. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans and advances available with the assessee as on April 1, 2011, should be considered. The AO was directed to reframe any addition after giving credit for this opening balance, thereby allowing Ground No. 1. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal ruled that interest income should be taxed on a cash basis if not actually received, following the Gauhati High Court's decision in N.R. Sirkar Vs. CIT. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 48,000 for alleged interest income was directed to be deleted, allowing Ground No. 2. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a working showing available balances for making the interest payment of Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal clarified that the opening balance from the diary should be allowed credit, unexplained principal amounts checked thereafter, and net interest income/expenditure verified. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans claimed by the assessee remained unverified, unaccounted, and untaxed. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the assessee's working and the lack of identity and whereabouts of the parties involved in the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the mistake was apparent from the record and the assessee's rectification application should have been adjudicated on merit. The lower authorities erred in not considering the corrected return and rejecting the rectification without proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard as notices were sent to incorrect email addresses, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO disallowed the loss and added commission based on general observations and assumptions without bringing specific evidence to prove the assessee's involvement in a sham transaction. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's findings.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure disallowed under Section 37 for business income computation does not preclude claiming it under Section 80G, as there is no specific embargo for such contributions other than those explicitly mentioned for Swach Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans and advances available with the assessee as on April 1, 2011, should be considered. The AO was directed to reframe any addition after giving credit for this opening balance, thereby allowing Ground No. 1. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal ruled that interest income should be taxed on a cash basis if not actually received, following the Gauhati High Court's decision in N.R. Sirkar Vs. CIT. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 48,000 for alleged interest income was directed to be deleted, allowing Ground No. 2. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a working showing available balances for making the interest payment of Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal clarified that the opening balance from the diary should be allowed credit, unexplained principal amounts checked thereafter, and net interest income/expenditure verified. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans and advances available with the assessee as on April 1, 2011, should be considered. The AO was directed to reframe any addition after giving credit for this opening balance, thereby allowing Ground No. 1. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal ruled that interest income should be taxed on a cash basis if not actually received, following the Gauhati High Court's decision in N.R. Sirkar Vs. CIT. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 48,000 for alleged interest income was directed to be deleted, allowing Ground No. 2. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a working showing available balances for making the interest payment of Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal clarified that the opening balance from the diary should be allowed credit, unexplained principal amounts checked thereafter, and net interest income/expenditure verified. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans and advances available with the assessee as on April 1, 2011, should be considered. The AO was directed to reframe any addition after giving credit for this opening balance, thereby allowing Ground No. 1. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal ruled that interest income should be taxed on a cash basis if not actually received, following the Gauhati High Court's decision in N.R. Sirkar Vs. CIT. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 48,000 for alleged interest income was directed to be deleted, allowing Ground No. 2. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a working showing available balances for making the interest payment of Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal clarified that the opening balance from the diary should be allowed credit, unexplained principal amounts checked thereafter, and net interest income/expenditure verified. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of loans and advances available with the assessee as on April 1, 2011, should be considered. The AO was directed to reframe any addition after giving credit for this opening balance, thereby allowing Ground No. 1. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal ruled that interest income should be taxed on a cash basis if not actually received, following the Gauhati High Court's decision in N.R. Sirkar Vs. CIT. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 48,000 for alleged interest income was directed to be deleted, allowing Ground No. 2. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a working showing available balances for making the interest payment of Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal clarified that the opening balance from the diary should be allowed credit, unexplained principal amounts checked thereafter, and net interest income/expenditure verified. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the trustee was negligent in not checking her email account, there were circumstances due to a former employee's departure that led to the delay in receiving the order. The Tribunal deemed it a fit case to condone the delay, subject to costs.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, one more chance should be given to the assessee to contest the case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee will submit necessary documents and will not seek adjournment on frivolous grounds.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and cooperate in the proceedings, and a cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed. The decision on merits will be adjudicated by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days considering the assessee's age, senior citizen status, and lack of knowledge in handling emails. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is applicable only when books of account are maintained but not audited. Since the assessee failed to maintain books of account, the default is for non-maintenance under Section 44AA, making it liable for penalty under Section 271A, not 271B. The imposition of penalty under Section 271B was deemed erroneous and unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to pinpoint defects in the assessee's books of accounts and quantitative records. The cash generated from sales, supported by invoices and VAT payments, was considered genuine.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA, specifically Article 25, allow for FTC claims. The filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules and not a mandatory condition that can debar the assessee from claiming the credit if other conditions are met. The DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act where they are more beneficial to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed submissions before the CIT(A) and had remained ex-parte. However, to give the assessee another opportunity, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO. A cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the assessee for their lethargic action.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Bench after hearing both parties. The Bench noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to file submissions. However, the Bench decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT noted the assessee's lack of submissions before the CIT(A) and the ex-parte order. However, it decided to grant one more chance to the assessee to contest the case before the AO for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity for hearing, passing the order in the name of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal held that an order passed against a deceased person is nullity and void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the decline in gross profit was explained and evidenced by stock tally. Since the books of account were accepted by the AO and CIT(A), and the gross margins were explained and reconciled with the previous year, applying the previous year's GP rate of 0.265% was not justified. The Tribunal relied on various case laws supporting that a small variation in GP rate or lack of a specific register does not automatically justify rejecting books of account.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been pursuing the appeal in a casual and cavalier manner and had been ex-parte before the lower authorities. However, considering the circumstances, the Bench decided to give the assessee one more chance to contest the case before the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for lethargic and negligent action.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's illiteracy and age, recognizing the principles of natural justice and Audi Alteram Partem. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the assessee's circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal because she did not file submissions and evidence. However, considering the assessee's submission of a delay condonation petition and the prayer for one more opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's illiteracy and lack of knowledge. The appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost of Rs. 2,000 imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal found that directly attributable expenses should not be allocated on a turnover basis when separate audited accounts are maintained. However, a portion of unapportioned expenses was directed to be allocated based on the AO's ratio.

The Tribunal found that directly attributable expenses should not be allocated on a turnover basis when separate audited accounts are maintained. However, a portion of unapportioned expenses was directed to be allocated based on the AO's ratio.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had challenged the addition of Rs. 31,69,001/- as an anonymous donation. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) stated that the CIT(A) had already addressed the grievance of the assessee and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Since the Ld. DR did not controvert the finding of the CIT(A), and the issues raised in grounds 1 to 3 were already decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A), the Tribunal concluded that the case was premature before them. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in limine. No specific finding was recorded by the ITAT on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in remanding the matter without power to do so. It also addressed the disallowance under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) and the addition under Section 36(i)(va), referencing Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It noted that the assessee had provided financial statements and details of expenses, and that the AO had accepted these in the assessment. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the substantive issues. The Tribunal noted that the AO had reopened the case under section 147 based on information from the insight portal which showed the same transaction of Rs. 31,00,000/- being recorded twice. The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly verified this information as required under section 148A(a) before issuing the show cause notice. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the notices under section 148A(b) and 148 were not served on the assessee at his correct address, leading to an ex-parte assessment under section 144. The Tribunal stated that the AO had the option to serve notices at the address available in the assessee's PAN and Aadhaar. The addition of Rs. 62,00,000/- as short-term capital gain was also questioned, as the assessee claimed the sale consideration was Rs. 31,00,000/- and it was a long-term asset. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 39-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's preoccupation with examinations as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal observed that the order passed by the CIT(E) violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's assessment was based on the DLC value as sale consideration without considering the nature of the transaction as a family settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and consequently, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. However, considering the prayer for one more chance, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained ex-parte before the CIT(A) and thus the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action. The assessee's AR prayed for another chance to contest the case before the AO.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file submissions before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases and excess stock was not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The High Court's decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. was applied, confirming the disallowance of a portion of the purchases.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an agriculturist with substantial land holdings and submitted sale bills for agricultural produce. The AO admitted that the assessee has huge land holdings and did not place on record any other source of income. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the deposited amount of Rs. 12.40 lacs were from the assessee's own source of income.

The ITAT noted the assessee's non-cooperation and negligence but decided to grant one more opportunity for adjudication before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as it was received in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause due to non-service of notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars extended the time limits for filing such applications. The CIT(Exemption) had not considered these circulars when rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another chance to contest the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after noting the assessee's submissions regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions that the jewellery was explained and concurred with the assessee's contentions.