ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the managing trustee. It directed the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee trust as registered for the assessment years in question, granting consequential benefits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the managing trustee. It directed the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee trust as registered for the assessment years in question, granting consequential benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and that the AO's order was also ex-parte. Considering the arguments advanced by the assessee, supported by an affidavit explaining his absence due to electioneering, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter required to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more chance to present his case before the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal clarified that this decision to restore the matter to the AO should not be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the AO in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the managing trustee. It directed the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee trust as registered for the assessment years in question, granting consequential benefits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to be heard. The three notices issued by the ld. CIT(E) on 25.01.2024, 06.02.2024, and 10.02.2024 were within a short span of 15 days, preventing the assessee from submitting relevant documentary evidence within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to decide it afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity of being heard, subject to depositing a cost of Rs. 3,000/- in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant papers before the ld. CIT(E) along with the receipt of the cost. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the ld. CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the managing trustee. It directed the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee trust as registered for the assessment years in question, granting consequential benefits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 89 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of a procedural misunderstanding by their counsel and adopting a liberal approach as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others. Regarding the rejection of applications under section 12AB and 80G, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected them primarily due to the assessee's failure to submit requested details and also cited discrepancies in the Article of Association for the 12AB rejection, which were not explicitly confronted to the assessee. The 80G rejection was consequential to the 12AB rejection. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit details and clarify issues. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard for both applications. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the dispute, which the CIT(E) would adjudicate independently. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(TDS) order was passed against well-settled law. The Assessing Officer had conducted proper enquiry and verification before passing the original order. Therefore, the CIT(TDS) was not justified in setting aside the order solely based on a difference of opinion or by observing that proper enquiry was not made, especially when it was evident that enquiry was indeed conducted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 89 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of a procedural misunderstanding by their counsel and adopting a liberal approach as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others. Regarding the rejection of applications under section 12AB and 80G, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected them primarily due to the assessee's failure to submit requested details and also cited discrepancies in the Article of Association for the 12AB rejection, which were not explicitly confronted to the assessee. The 80G rejection was consequential to the 12AB rejection. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit details and clarify issues. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard for both applications. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the dispute, which the CIT(E) would adjudicate independently. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E)'s comments on the merits of the case after allowing the withdrawal of the application were against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) to be heard afresh.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to respond to hearing notices. The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings were set aside and to be framed afresh, rendering the penalty appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard. This decision was made on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 3000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that while the advance payment was made to a related company, it was part of a consideration for land purchase, and the assessee had taken possession of the land. Therefore, it was not a case of the trust's income or property being used for the benefit of specified persons. The Tribunal also found no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, especially since the reassessment notice was issued after four years.

The Tribunal held that the issue was primarily about the method of income calculation and estimation, not a deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, it was concluded that a difference in calculation or estimation does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had amended its trust deed to restrict activities to India and included an irrevocability clause. It also observed that the CIT(E) had not given sufficient opportunity for the assessee to prove the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for non-response to notices was not initially pleaded in the memorandum of appeals, but was raised later. The Tribunal also observed that the email address for receiving notices was provided and acknowledged, and the responsibility to check emails lay with the concerned person. The appellant candidly admitted negligence.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for non-response to notices was not initially pleaded in the memorandum of appeals, but was raised later. The Tribunal also observed that the email address for receiving notices was provided and acknowledged, and the responsibility to check emails lay with the concerned person. The appellant candidly admitted negligence.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for non-response to notices was not initially pleaded in the memorandum of appeals, but was raised later. The Tribunal also observed that the email address for receiving notices was provided and acknowledged, and the responsibility to check emails lay with the concerned person. The appellant candidly admitted negligence.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for non-response to notices was not initially pleaded in the memorandum of appeals, but was raised later. The Tribunal also observed that the email address for receiving notices was provided and acknowledged, and the responsibility to check emails lay with the concerned person. The appellant candidly admitted negligence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and not on merits, and importantly, had not considered the remand report despite calling for it. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for non-response to notices was not initially pleaded in the memorandum of appeals, but was raised later. The Tribunal also observed that the email address for receiving notices was provided and acknowledged, and the responsibility to check emails lay with the concerned person. The appellant candidly admitted negligence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of justice due to technical issues and the broker's data loss. It decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence and submissions to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the 'letter of allotment' dated 14.07.2014, coupled with part payment through banking channels before the registration date, qualified as an 'agreement fixing the amount of consideration'. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 56(2)(x).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not specify the dates of the notices issued to the assessee and did not consider the grounds of appeal on merits. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer, while passing the section 154 order for AY 2014-15, may not have considered the effect of a previous Appellate Tribunal order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid as it did not decide the appeal on merits, failing to address the grounds of appeal. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely due to the assessee's non-appearance despite notices, without properly adjudicating the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 25,21,290/- was not sustainable as the funds, directly or indirectly, originated from the IDBI OD account and were routed through it. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the notional interest disallowance of Rs. 4,30,500/-.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been provided adequate opportunities and had failed to submit evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted a detailed inquiry and erred in applying the Human Probability Test for the remaining amount after accepting a portion of the deposit. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,50,000 was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to an email error. The Tribunal also noted that the reasons for reopening the assessment were factually incorrect and based on wrong assumptions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and could not present its defence. While imposing a cost on the assessee for lethargy, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication to decide the case on merits, providing one more opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not refer the matter to the DVO for determination of FMV under section 50C(2) and that the capital gain on compulsory acquisition is exempt under section 10(37). The Tribunal also found issues with the calculation of capital gains and the denial of deduction under section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to reconsider the issues after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met. The AO had taken a plausible view after considering the assessee's explanations and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings for the same assessment years had been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty orders also deserved to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings for the same assessment years had been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty orders also deserved to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeals without awaiting the remand reports from the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeals without awaiting the remand reports from the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to the excessive salary paid to the trustees. The entire claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act cannot be disallowed due to such excess payments.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to explain cash deposits and the confusion regarding jurisdiction. Considering the assessee's request for another opportunity and the ex-parte nature of the assessment, the case was remanded back to the AO.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of salary paid to trustees, finding that the increase in salary was not adequately justified by the assessee. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee explains the source of cash deposits as withdrawals from the same bank account, the onus shifts to the revenue authorities to prove otherwise. In this case, the revenue failed to provide any material evidence to disprove the assessee's explanation.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of salary paid to trustees, finding that the increase in salary was not adequately justified by the assessee. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of delayed service of the AO's order. The assessee's own actions indicated knowledge of the order much earlier than claimed, thus the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the debit transactions in the bank account, which represented payments made to the newspaper agency. The Tribunal held that the AO should hear the assessee's submissions on merits and remanded the matter back for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account and the estimation of profit were based on surmises and conjectures. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence before the CIT(A), which was not found to have defects.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the debit transactions in the bank account, which represented payments made to the newspaper agency. The Tribunal held that the AO should hear the assessee's submissions on merits and remanded the matter back for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that an online appeal was indeed filed under a previous name and was pending before the ITAT. Therefore, the present manual appeal was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the findings in the related online appeal.

The Tribunal found that while some notices might not have been served, the assessee's conduct was non-cooperative. However, for the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO.