Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the write-off of advance against capital commitment was not an adjustment attracting Section 115JB(2)(i) as the asset had ceased to exist.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals from the assessee's and his wife's bank accounts were sufficient to cover the cash deposits. Therefore, the additions made under Section 69A were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 523 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation sufficient. Although the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities, the Tribunal felt that the matter should be decided on merits. The Tribunal restored the case to the file of the AO to decide it afresh, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for being lethargic and unserious in pursuing the case.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income, made on a lump sum basis without reference to specific entries, does not qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined in Section 271AAB(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty levied was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the sale deed for 1/4th portion of the land at Rs. 23 lacs was proved, and the findings regarding the sale consideration being Rs. 45 lacs and Rs. 22 lacs being undisclosed were set aside. However, the issue of explaining the source of Rs. 8 lacs cash payment required further examination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB(1)(c) was not sustainable. It was found that the AO initiated penalty proceedings without proper satisfaction and issued two separate show-cause notices for different limbs of the section, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A cannot be invoked for amounts already recorded in the assessee's books of account. It also directed the deletion of an addition related to notional interest on a loan advanced to the assessee's son.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely an agent acting under a POA and not the owner of the property. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in his hands.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearings despite notices and did not provide sufficient explanation or documents to support the claimed capital loss and deductions. The CIT(A) had also upheld the AO's order, and the assessee failed to rebut these findings.
The Tribunal held that TDS claimed under Sections 194A and 194H should be fully allowed as the corresponding income was fully declared. It also held that TDS claimed under Section 194Q should be allowed, as the assessee acted as an agent and the turnover was not theirs.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the transaction, including broker bills, contract notes, and demat statements. The AO had not pointed out any defects in the evidence and had not made necessary inquiries or allowed cross-examination.
The tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons and judicial precedents. The tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee did not respond to four notices. Similarly, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to submit evidence regarding the genuineness of purchases from unregistered parties. The assessee's grounds of appeal also highlighted the ex-parte nature of the assessment and sought it to be quashed. The assessee's representative requested one more opportunity to present evidence and arguments on merits, citing equity and natural justice. The Tribunal, considering that the assessment order was ex-parte and the assessee had not adequately presented their case, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue on merits after examining the facts, materials, evidence, and submissions of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee purchased agricultural food items which were ultimately sold, implying that the entire purchase could not be added. The assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments. The decision to restore the matter was not to be construed as having any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 369 days, noting a violation of natural justice as notices were not served on the correct email address. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequately mentioning the notices issued and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee must cooperate and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation to the AO for verification, stating that the CIT(A) had directed verification rather than setting aside the issue. Regarding advances, the Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that notional interest cannot be charged on interest-free advances given for charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration under Section 12AB on the grounds of non-compliance was not sustainable. The notices issued by the CIT(E) were within short time frames (30-40 days), and the assessee had submitted the required information, leading to further investigation. Therefore, this part of the rejection was not a valid basis. Regarding the genuineness of activities, the Tribunal analyzed the inspector's report and the assessee's counter-arguments for each beneficiary. For Trilok Singh, the Tribunal found that while he was a member, the gift was given at his daughter's marriage, which constituted a charitable activity. For Pratap Singh, the Tribunal noted that the gift was for his daughter's marriage and supported by an affidavit. For Vinita Rawat, the Tribunal noted the gift was in kind for her daughter's marriage. For Joga Singh Adhikari, the Tribunal noted the gift was in kind for his daughter's marriage. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had ignored the fact that the expenses were for gifts during marriages of poor family members, which is a charitable activity. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the 80G recognition separately but implied that if the activities are found to be charitable, the recognition should follow. The operative direction was to grant registration under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(23C) cannot be denied solely for lack of Section 12AA registration, as these provisions are independent. It also noted that the receipts of each educational institution should be considered separately for the threshold limit.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for denial of registration and recognition were not valid. It noted that the assessee had submitted evidence to clarify misunderstandings and that the denial of registration was not appropriate. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds related to unsecured loans and interest thereon, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion. However, the ground concerning rental receipts was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It was held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the price rise in penny stock shares, making the transactions dubious.
The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 195 days in filing the appeals, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2500/- for each application (12AB and 80G) to be paid to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to the employee not updating the assessee and the office bearers not diligently following up on the applications. However, it also noted that the office bearers waited for a response without checking the receipt of the first application. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications under Section 12AB and 80G for non-compliance with requests for details and genuineness of activities. The assessee argued that there were sufficient reasons for non-receipt of notices and non-compliance. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to submit details and clarify issues. The CIT(E) was directed to grant sufficient opportunity of being heard for both applications. The Tribunal explicitly stated that its decision to restore the matter did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 195 days in filing the appeals, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2500/- for each application (12AB and 80G) to be paid to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to the employee not updating the assessee and the office bearers not diligently following up on the applications. However, it also noted that the office bearers waited for a response without checking the receipt of the first application. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications under Section 12AB and 80G for non-compliance with requests for details and genuineness of activities. The assessee argued that there were sufficient reasons for non-receipt of notices and non-compliance. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to submit details and clarify issues. The CIT(E) was directed to grant sufficient opportunity of being heard for both applications. The Tribunal explicitly stated that its decision to restore the matter did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the AO had brushed aside material evidence and made additions based on suspicion and conjecture. Relying on various High Court and ITAT judgments, including those dealing with the same script, the Tribunal found the share transactions to be genuine.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for denial of registration and recognition were not valid. It noted that the assessee had submitted evidence to clarify misunderstandings and that the denial of registration was not appropriate. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for denial of registration and recognition were not valid. It noted that the assessee had submitted evidence to clarify misunderstandings and that the denial of registration was not appropriate. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in issuing a penalty notice that did not specify the exact provision of law under which the penalty was proposed. The assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves due to this lack of clarity. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given several opportunities but failed to provide the necessary details. However, considering the assessee's plea for one more chance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee paid the total taxes before the due date of filing the return of income. Citing CBDT Circular No. 2/2015 and the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Prannoy Roy, the Tribunal held that no interest under Section 234A would be charged on self-assessment tax paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was adjudicated ex-parte by both the AO and the CIT(A). While the CIT(A) noted no compliance or adjournment requests, the Tribunal observed from the evidence filed by the assessee that an adjournment petition was placed before the CIT(A) which was not considered or discussed. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention of denial of reasonable opportunity despite multiple adjournment applications, which the Revenue did not controvert. Considering that the assessee could not advance arguments before the CIT(A) and the assessment order was also ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue based on evidence and submissions of the assessee, with the condition that the assessee will not seek frivolous adjournments and will remain cooperative. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration. It was observed that the predominant object of the assessee was charitable, and the commercial activities were incidental and ancillary to achieving those charitable objects.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given several opportunities but failed to provide the necessary details. However, considering the assessee's plea for one more chance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing confirmations and bank statements. The AO failed to provide conclusive direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the loan amounts actually belonged to the assessee, making the addition based on suspicion.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessment order was served later than claimed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow deductions claimed by the assessee, as evidence was provided during remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction from his earlier statement and the inconsistent explanation for the cash found were not acceptable. The cash was considered unexplained money belonging to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for late deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. However, the disallowance under Section 43B for employer contributions was deleted as they were paid before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings on wrong reasons and with incorrect material. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were not as alleged and that there was no escapement of income.
The Tribunal noted that the AO recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment on specific grounds (bogus LTCG, debentures, property sale). However, in the assessment order, the AO did not make any additions on these grounds but made an addition by disallowing loss on sale of shares. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that if the AO, after issuing a notice under Section 148, accepts the assessee's contention that the income originally believed to have escaped assessment has not, in fact, escaped, it is not open for the AO to independently assess some other income without a fresh notice.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant-assessee's AR admitted to inadvertent mistakes leading to non-participation in the proceedings before the Learned CIT(A). Despite multiple notices, the assessee could not comply due to the AR's oversight. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee should not suffer due to the AR's mistake and that a reasonable opportunity for a hearing is a matter of justice.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation and supporting affidavits to be cryptic and not fully substantiated, particularly regarding the repayment of funds. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation and supporting affidavits to be cryptic and not fully substantiated, particularly regarding the repayment of funds. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the facts.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not follow the prescribed procedure and that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found discrepancies between the reasons for reopening and the assessment order.
The CIT(A) partially sustained the addition, confirming Rs. 1,35,659 as unexplained and deleting the rest. The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions regarding social status and relevant instructions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the AO's conclusion or believes more inquiries should have been made. The AO had conducted inquiries and examined the records, and the assessment order was not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition related to cash deposits as the assessee's business involved commission income. The disallowance of expenses was also deleted as the assessee provided necessary details and the AO did not point out specific defects.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was without appreciating the law and the evidence. The assessee had provided names, addresses, PANs, share application forms, board resolutions, ITRs, confirmations, and affidavits from investors, and the money was received through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of an unsigned agreement found in the assessee's possession, especially when no independent inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer to corroborate the payment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of the principles of natural justice due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit the required details.