ITAT Jaipur Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not lodge any police complaint despite claiming his bank account details were misused. The Assessing Officer also did not conduct a thorough inquiry by examining all involved parties or reporting the matter to the police. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh and comprehensive inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer had examined the issue of deduction under Section 80G during the assessment, and the deduction for CSR contribution to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund was allowable under Section 80G(2)(a)(iiia) as there was no specific ineligibility for this particular fund, unlike contributions to Swach Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. The Tribunal noted that Section 37 and Section 80G are distinct and mutually exclusive.

The Tribunal held that the interest payable on the loan from the State Government/World Bank was not covered under Section 43B of the Act as the State Government and World Bank do not fall under the specified definitions of financial institutions. Regarding electricity duty, it was held that the assessee acted as a conduit for collection and remittance, and the duty was adjusted against subsidies, thus Section 43B(a) was not applicable. The disallowance of interest was directed to be deleted, and the deletion of additions for electricity duty was upheld.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Tribunal, in this case, noted that the AO had not issued proper show cause notices before making the addition and had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to various judicial precedents that emphasized the importance of natural justice and proper evidence before making additions. The Tribunal found that the cash sales were duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by invoices and other relevant documents.

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 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 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 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 noted that the assessee maintained separate books of accounts and followed a cost-center basis for expense allocation. The assessee admitted that an expenditure of Rs. 49,94,866/- was not apportioned to the exempted unit. The Tribunal directed the AO to make a suitable addition of 32% of this amount, less any already allocated, and to delete the balance.

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 issue concerning the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI due to late payment is squarely decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the revenue, thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed. For grounds 1 and 2, regarding disallowance under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained separate books of accounts and consistently applied a cost-center based accounting method. While the AO and CIT(A) insisted on turnover-based allocation for indirect expenses, the assessee argued for its systematic approach. The Tribunal observed that the assessee admitted to not apportioning certain minor expenses and consented to their allocation in the ratio determined by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

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 assessee failed to prove the genuineness of impugned purchases and also failed to produce documents for manufacturing expenses. The circular No. 37 of 2016 was held not applicable to the facts of the case. The assessee's contention that the addition was related to export income was also rejected.

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 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.