ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2024

The assessee, through their counsel, informed the tribunal that they wished to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the on-money payment for the land purchase was made by the trustees from their disclosed additional income, not by the assessee society. Therefore, the addition in the hands of the assessee society was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the difference amount paid for the land purchase could not be added to the assessee trust's income as the source of funds was accepted as the trustees' undisclosed income, which was already offered for tax. The onus was on the revenue to prove the funds were spent elsewhere, which they failed to do.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed in gross violation of natural justice as the show cause notice was not effectively served on the assessee. Merely uploading a notice on the income tax portal does not constitute proper service as per Section 282 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the affidavit of the assessee, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the order of the Addl. CIT(A) was set aside, and the delay was condoned for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on a factual misunderstanding by the CIT(E), as the trust was indeed registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Tribunal found this factual error to be curable.

The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is mandatory for obtaining registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Education Society, the Tribunal stated that charitable institutions regulated by other state laws must comply with them. Since the assessee was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, they were not eligible for registration.

The Tribunal noted that the primary objection by the CIT(E) was the trust's registration status under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee provided evidence of its registration. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) for both applications.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Exemption), stating that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is mandatory for an NGO claiming to be for public benefit, as per Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal also agreed that the genuineness of activities could not be verified due to non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly deal with the evidence presented by the assessee regarding the use of credit cards by Mr. Ram Babu Garg. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the intention of the amendments to Section 80G was to simplify procedures. They interpreted the proviso to Section 80G(5)(iii) to mean that an application for regular approval, after provisional approval, should be filed either six months before the provisional approval expires or within six months of commencing activities, whichever is earlier.

The Tribunal held that procedural delays should not automatically lead to the rejection of applications if it impedes substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application based on a decision related to Section 10(23C)(vi), which was not applicable. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant permanent registration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the source of cash deposits through documented loan transactions conducted via banking channels. The sequence of loan acceptance, withdrawal, redeposit, and repayment was considered valid.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and did not provide any fresh evidence or documents to support their contentions. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate their grounds of appeal.

The Revenue's DR had no objection to the withdrawal. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 197 days, citing sufficient cause and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee gets an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was allegedly deprived of an adequate opportunity to be heard. The bench decided not to go into the merits of the case but emphasized the imperative need for the assessee to be given a fair chance to present their case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the property was purchased by a company in which he is a director, and the company accounted for the asset and payment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not fully appreciate the evidence presented. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited was explained as arising from the assessee's professional income, which was supported by her books of account and patient register. The Tribunal found no abnormal trend or sudden hike in income to warrant treating the deposits as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable as it was based on a reassessment order that had been quashed by the ITAT. The subsequent order passed by the AO to give effect to the ITAT's order also confirmed the original assessment, thus removing the basis for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(E). The Bench noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application on grounds of non-registration with the RPT Act and non-genuineness of activities. While the CIT(E) issued notices and the assessee filed replies, the assessee contended they were deprived of an adequate opportunity of being heard. Specifically, the assessee claimed they replied to a subsequent notice on January 31, 2024, but this was not considered by the CIT(E) before passing the order. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case but emphasized the importance of providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to produce all relevant papers to settle the disputes. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).