ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal held that the surrendered amounts, representing unaccounted debtors and excess cash, should be treated as business income rather than unexplained investment or money. Consequently, the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable, and normal tax rates should apply.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 154 as the issue of deduction under Section 80IC was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, rectification was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be classified as unexplained income, provided the assessee had sufficient cash balance in their books. The Assessing Officer also erred in reducing monthly cash expenses based solely on suspicion without any material evidence.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained cash purchases, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus. For the gross profit addition, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the profit at 13% instead of the 30% applied by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition of Rs. 29,40,000/- as unexplained cash deposit was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence regarding the source of the cash, and the AO had not brought any material to disprove the same.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the mistake of the previous counsel and the liberal approach adopted by courts. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the communication denying further TDS credit under Section 154 was issued without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and that the AO's order was also ex-parte. The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the AO did not consider the submissions and the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The AO is to examine the issue afresh after considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the AO. The assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund before the commencement of assessment proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present documents and clarify doubts. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(E) should decide the issues on merits after providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that in the appeal concerning Section 12AB, the assessee claimed to have submitted documents, but a technical glitch in the department's system prevented them from being uploaded. The Ld. DR had no objection to remanding the matter. For the Section 80G appeal, the assessee had filed a fresh application which was admitted, rendering the appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard for the 12AB application due to a technical defect in the system. For the 80G appeal, the assessee had filed a fresh application which had been admitted, rendering the appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot arbitrarily reject a good explanation supported by documentary evidence. The surplus money deposited, explained as agricultural land proceeds, should be considered. The addition was also unsustainable as no specific section was invoked.

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential proceedings, including the reassessment order, are also void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being an aged widow and the communication issues with her advocate. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance, and that the assessee's submissions regarding commission income were not considered. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Bench noted that the reason provided for the delay in filing the appeal, which involved legal advice and technical glitches, lacked merit and was dismissed. Subsequently, the assessee's authorized representative applied for the withdrawal of the appeal, to which the DR had no objection.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It noted that in some cases, TDS was not deducted due to exemptions (Section 10(23C)) or submission of Form 15G/H, and in others, the software might have erred. The penalty appeal was set aside as infructuous pending re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not been registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is a prerequisite for registration under section 12AB. While an application for registration under the RPT Act was pending, the appellant had also provided incorrect information regarding salary payments to a member. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It noted that in some cases, TDS was not deducted due to exemptions (Section 10(23C)) or submission of Form 15G/H, and in others, the software might have erred. The penalty appeal was set aside as infructuous pending re-adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It noted that in some cases, TDS was not deducted due to exemptions (Section 10(23C)) or submission of Form 15G/H, and in others, the software might have erred. The penalty appeal was set aside as infructuous pending re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the sellers were witnesses for the Revenue, not the assessee. The AO failed to enforce summons and bring evidence to support allegations of cash payments. The CIT(A) erred in drawing adverse inferences against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the AO failed to record a finding that the assessee did not make a true and full disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. The CIT(A)'s order was thus sustained.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the defects pointed out by the CIT(A) were not substantial, especially if the hardcopy of the appeal file was perused. The Tribunal also noted that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed multiple appeals concerning the same orders and the same assessment year. The tribunal observed that since the provisional registration and approval had already lapsed and been cancelled by the CIT(E), the appeals filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not been registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is a prerequisite for registration under section 12AB. While an application for registration under the RPT Act was pending, the appellant had also provided incorrect information regarding salary payments to a member. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It noted that in some cases, TDS was not deducted due to exemptions (Section 10(23C)) or submission of Form 15G/H, and in others, the software might have erred. The penalty appeal was set aside as infructuous pending re-adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed multiple appeals concerning the same orders and the same assessment year. The tribunal observed that since the provisional registration and approval had already lapsed and been cancelled by the CIT(E), the appeals filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It noted that in some cases, TDS was not deducted due to exemptions (Section 10(23C)) or submission of Form 15G/H, and in others, the software might have erred. The penalty appeal was set aside as infructuous pending re-adjudication.

The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty order was rightly set aside by the Learned CIT(A) because the claim for deductions under section 54B of the Act was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal in a previous order dated 12.04.2019, which was subsequent to the penalty order dated 29.03.2019.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's AR admitted to inadvertent mistakes in the dates of the assessment order, penalty order, and their service. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to file rectified Form-35 before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for decision on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The assessee had disclosed the excess stock and the AO had accepted it. The issue of whether Section 115BBE was applicable was not properly considered by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's AR admitted to inadvertent mistakes in the dates of the assessment order, penalty order, and their service. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to file rectified Form-35 before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for decision on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. Since no exempt income was earned in the current year and the investments were made from interest-free funds, Section 14A was not applicable. The circular relied upon by the PCIT was also set aside by higher courts.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the same set of records already examined during the original scrutiny assessment. This constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, making the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent interest income earned on money lending declared under IDS, 2016, should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE may not be applicable prior to November 28, 2016.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the AO's order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were not met. The disallowance made by the AO for a portion of the provision for standard assets was considered sufficient, and the PCIT's attempt to revise it was deemed a change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that the cash book maintained by the assessee was regularly audited and that the discrepancy in one entry should not lead to the rejection of the entire books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the source of the cash deposit as savings and withdrawals from a joint account. Although the assessee had not filed ITRs for previous years, the explanation provided was not controverted. Therefore, the addition made was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of deductions for five consecutive years, despite not being eligible, indicated a willful attempt to evade tax. However, the AO levied penalty at 200% without specific reasons, so the Tribunal directed recalculation at 100%.

The Tribunal held that the applicant trust was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the rejection of its application. The short time between the show cause notice and the hearing date was insufficient for the applicant to respond adequately. Therefore, the case was fit for remand.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law due to a vague show-cause notice and lack of jurisdiction. It was also noted that the assessee had disclosed the errors before the notice under Section 148 was issued, thus preventing concealment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not legally sustainable. It was noted that the assessee disclosed the error before the notice under Section 148 was issued, paid the differential tax, and the penalty notice was defective. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and require positive evidence of intentional concealment, which was lacking.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of deductions for five consecutive years, which were later withdrawn, indicated a willful attempt to evade tax rather than a bonafide mistake. However, the AO had levied penalty at 200% without providing specific reasons, leading the Tribunal to direct recalculation of the penalty at 100%.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without valid jurisdiction. The assessment order, being based on a procedurally flawed notice, was consequently quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient and reasonable cause for not complying with the online notices, especially considering her compliance with a subsequent physical notice. The penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had sufficient cause. The assessee then sought to withdraw the appeal as a fresh application had been filed in view of a CBDT circular and was pending.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding inadvertent mistakes due to adverse working conditions and his wife's lack of tax knowledge was plausible. The Tribunal noted that the assessee corrected the mistakes promptly upon inquiry and had a clean record for many years, thus setting aside the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had issued notices in a short span and without providing sufficient opportunities for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal also acknowledged the submission of an affidavit explaining the email address error. Considering these factors, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer on merits due to the negligence of their counsel. For ITA No. 361/JPR/2024, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient and reasonable cause for the belated filing of the appeal before the NFAC, and the delay was condoned. Given that the assessment order in the quantum proceedings was ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 360/JPR/2024, the Tribunal noted that the non-compliance with notices under Section 271(1)(b) was for the same reasons as the delay in the quantum appeal. Since the delay was condoned based on these reasons, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. The AO was directed to delete the levy of penalty. Both appeals were allowed.