Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 2 of 3
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.
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.
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 observed that the defects in the order of the CIT(E) were curable and that the assessee had not been given sufficient opportunity for being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appellant sufficiently proved that the notices from the CIT(E) were not served on the provided email address. The principle of natural justice was violated as the applicant was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the rejection of the application. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for its explanations and that the retracted statement of a third party could not be completely invalidated. Adverse inferences were drawn against the assessee for non-compliance with statutory notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order contained mistakes regarding the dates of sale and purchase of agricultural lands. The assessee, being an illiterate farmer, was not granted proper opportunity by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order dated 12.05.2021, as the case was selected for limited scrutiny on only two issues. The PCIT enlarged the scope of jurisdiction by considering the expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility, which was not part of the limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prior voluntary return filing and acknowledged potential compelling circumstances for non-compliance due to her being a lady. The Tribunal condoned the four-day delay in filing the appeal and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as it violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness whose statement was relied upon. The Tribunal also noted that the GST authorities had previously decided a similar issue in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the comparative cash deposit during the demonetization period versus the previous year is a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole basis for addition. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's explanation of substantial cash in hand and increasing business turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause. It also ruled that the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was incorrect as the delay in Form 10B filing was condoned by CBDT circular and the Section 12AA registration number was on record. The issue of capital expenditure was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prior voluntary return filing and acknowledged potential compelling circumstances for non-compliance due to her being a lady. The Tribunal condoned the four-day delay in filing the appeal and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds of appeal, noting that it had no constraint in providing justice to the assessee and that these grounds were purely legal. Apropos the original grounds, the Tribunal noted that the NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The NFAC's order detailed that the AO received information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, indicating fictitious profits in equities and derivative trading amounting to Rs. 51,47,700/- (for AY 2013-14, Rs. 27,67,800/- was added as business profit after considering profits already offered). This information was based on search operations and statements recorded under Sections 133A and 131 of the Act, revealing the appellant's involvement in rigging share prices through entities like Hem Securities Ltd., CM Goenka Stock Brokers Ltd., and Maverick Share Brokers Ltd. The NFAC upheld the validity of the notice under Section 148, finding sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. The NFAC dismissed Ground No. 1 (validity of reopening) and Ground No. 2 (addition of Rs. 27,67,800/-), stating that while profits were not added again to avoid double taxation, the fictitious losses claimed were disallowed. The Tribunal, in its order for ITA No. 467/JP/2024 (AY 2016-17), noted that the NFAC's order was 'stereo' to that in ITA No. 465/JP/2024 (AY 2013-14), except for the amounts. Therefore, the decision in ITA No. 465/JP/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals, and all appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 318 days and that there was a lack of diligence in pursuing the matter. However, considering the applicant is a trust seeking registration, the Tribunal deemed it fit to allow the condonation of delay with costs.
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 15,66,620/- on account of interest received on income tax refund, treating it as income from other sources. The CIT(A) upheld the addition but limited it to Rs. 4,88,959/-, deleting the remaining amount of Rs. 10,77,661/-.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's AR did not press the ground of appeal regarding limitation. However, concerns were raised about the adequacy of opportunities to be heard due to the manner and timing of notices issued by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) failed to state and discuss the points for determination before confirming the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the source of the deposit in the assessee's account was M/s Bright Corporation, and the source of deposit in M/s Bright Corporation's account was Shri Samsun Paul Gohil, which was known to the department. Therefore, the source of the Rs. 17,00,000/- stood explained in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits. The Tribunal also noted that the order was passed in the name of a deceased assessee without bringing the legal heir on record.
The Tribunal noted the circumstances and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case before the AO by submitting necessary documents. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for lethargic action. The penalty appeal was rendered infructuous pending the quantum appeal's outcome.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for cash withdrawals being for property purchase, though delayed in redeposit, was plausible. The Tribunal found no justification to disbelieve the assessee's explanation based on mere time gaps.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to prove the transaction of loan taken by the assessee or any violation of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a 'kuchha arhatia' (commission agent) and only his commission constituted his turnover, not the total freight charges. The AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the entire freight as the assessee's turnover without proper verification.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's assessment order, dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal. The tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate claims that the assessment order was void ab initio and did not provide sufficient reasons for not responding to notices or for the delay in filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of receipts and net profit by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises and conjectures, lacking material on record. The application to submit additional evidence was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of gross receipts and net profit by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises and conjectures, lacking supporting material. The assessee's application to submit additional evidence was rejected due to lack of plausible reasons and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and ledger accounts, to establish a direct nexus between the business loan obtained and the interest income earned from advancing it to another party. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenses was unjustified.
The tribunal noted a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. Grounds 1 and 2 were not pressed. Regarding grounds 3 to 5, the tribunal found that the revised certificate and challans regarding ESI & PF contributions might have escaped the attention of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance of Rs. 11,50,000 and realization of debtors of Rs. 1,16,340 were verifiable from the Balance Sheet of the previous year. The remaining cash deposit was considered to be out of current year transactions, supported by subsequent cash withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the rejection of its applications. Therefore, the basic principles of natural justice were not complied with.
The Tribunal held that since the ITAT had already decided in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of these expenses as part of work-in-progress, there was no reason to deviate from that earlier order. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was arbitrary and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had incorporated the excess stock in its books and that the GP rate was comparable to previous years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the rejection of its applications. Therefore, the basic principles of natural justice were not complied with.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed submissions before the CIT(A), leading to the ex-parte order. However, considering the assessee's prayer for another chance, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, nor did they present any material to support their case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Addl. CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A). The assessee argued for another chance to contest the case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal, while imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000 on the assessee for lethargic action, decided to restore the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal observed that despite notices, the assessee was not represented and appeared to be uninterested in pursuing the case. The assessee also failed to provide any written submissions or arguments. Therefore, following precedents, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the appellant was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the rejection of its application. The CIT(E) issued a notice with a very short time for the applicant to respond, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and Addl. CIT(A) due to a communication issue with email notices. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh decision on merits to ensure a fair hearing.
The Bench observed that the assessee did not appear despite the notice from the Tribunal, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following precedents, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed. The assessee also failed to file written submissions to controvert the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any response to the CIT(A)'s order. Following precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and had failed to furnish proper replies or documents, leading to dismissal. However, considering the explanation regarding non-receipt of notices at the registered email and the submission that the investment source was out of a gift from his father from sale of agricultural land, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided confirmation, affidavits, and bank statements for the loans. Previous loans from some of these creditors had been accepted by the revenue. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents emphasizing that once the assessee proves the identity and genuineness of the depositors and they acknowledge the loan, the burden shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted several opportunities but remained non-cooperative and negligent. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more chance to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligent actions.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 80IA(7) (applicable to 80-IAC) made it mandatory to furnish the audit report before the specified date. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs. Wipro Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the disallowance due to the strict compliance requirement for exemption provisions.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of agricultural income was made on conjectures and surmises without adverse material on record, and therefore, directed its deletion. Similarly, the disallowance of expenses for subletting income was set aside due to consistency with previous years' assessments.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to significant factual errors in the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to demonstrate a live link between tangible material and the belief that income had escaped assessment, quashing the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that for small traders opting for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, who are not required to maintain regular books of account, the AO cannot reject the explanation of cash deposits being business receipts without contrary material. The Tribunal also noted that if there are cash deposits and withdrawals, the peak credit should be considered for addition.
The Tribunal held that the deposits in the bank account were fully explained as being from the sale of agricultural lands, considering the assessee's sole source of income and the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the closing balance in the bank account was significantly lower than the addition made, making Section 69A inapplicable.