Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to independently apply his mind to the information received and did not provide necessary documents or paraphrased reports along with the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings were deemed illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act after the impugned order was passed and that there were concerns about adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee had subsequently applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the denial of registration solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act was curable.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the denial of registration was based on a curable defect, and the assessee had taken steps to rectify it.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with notices and failed to provide proper opportunity for hearing. The lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal, considering the grounds of appeal relating to natural justice and opportunity of hearing, set aside the order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete details of turnover, sales, ledger accounts, and books of accounts with bills and vouchers during the assessment proceedings, despite sufficient opportunities. The AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) and made additions. Similarly, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee did not submit any submissions nor sought any adjournment for the notices issued. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's orders with a brief, four-line order. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted a detailed paper book and requested the matter be remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh, as documents could not be produced at both lower stages. Considering the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing sufficient opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A).
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's adjournment application and without providing an opportunity of hearing. The tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before both the AO and CIT(A). While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal emphasized the need to decide the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision with one more opportunity for hearing, subject to the assessee's cooperation.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a duty to appear, dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits is not appropriate. They emphasized the importance of natural justice and decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the dividend income received from the foreign joint venture was correctly taxed under Section 115BBD at the special rate of 15%. It also found that the interest paid on foreign currency loans to foreign branches of Indian banks was not subject to TDS under Sections 194A or 195.
The Tribunal held that the AO made a lump sum addition without rejecting the books of account or providing a basis for the figure. The assessee had provided correct addresses and paid TDS, and it was not the assessee's responsibility to enforce the attendance of third parties.
The Tribunal held that the denial of the claim was unjustified as the necessary details were available on record, including an audit report. The contradictory reasons provided by the CPC and the Assessing Officer further supported this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, additions on account of Hawala commission income were set aside due to lack of incriminating material for those specific years. The addition of Rs. 4 crores for AY 2018-19, made on a protective basis, was also allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, additions on account of Hawala commission income were set aside due to lack of incriminating material for those specific years. The addition of Rs. 4 crores for AY 2018-19, made on a protective basis, was also allowed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the addition on account of Hawala commission income could not be sustained. The reasoning was that the incriminating material recovered during the search pertained only to one assessment year (AY 2018-19), and therefore, jurisdiction could not be assumed under Section 153A for the previous two years without specific incriminating material for those periods. Guesswork was not permissible. Consequently, the additions on account of Hawala commission income for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were set aside. Regarding the addition of Rs. 4 crores for AY 2018-19, made under Section 69A on a protective basis, the Tribunal found no reason to sustain it. This was because the same addition was made on a substantive basis in the case of Shri Banwari Lal, from whom the cash was seized. Furthermore, Shri Banwari Lal had subsequently withdrawn his appeal and sought dismissal of his case, implying he was not claiming ownership of the cash. Therefore, the addition in the assessee's case on a protective basis was deleted. The ratio is that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question, and protective additions are unsustainable when the substantive addition has been resolved in another assessee's case. The appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were allowed, and the appeal for AY 2018-19 was partly allowed.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution and lack of response to notices. The tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, upholding the AO's addition as the assessee failed to provide any evidence or arguments to substantiate its grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the facts of the cited case, Sri S. R. Ravishankar, were different from the present case. The Tribunal noted that the Sub-Registrar had registered the sale of the house at Rs. 23,40,000/-, not Rs. 21,00,000/- as declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's reasoning for making the addition of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Tribunal did not find merit in the assessee's contention that the sale deed registration date and the declaration of LTCG in AY 2017-18 negated the addition under Section 50C. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessee herself had produced a copy of the approval under Section 153D dated December 31, 2019, accorded by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Udaipur. This approval was in response to a letter dated December 30, 2019, forwarding draft assessment orders. The Tribunal found no merit in the contention that the approval was not obtained or was mechanically granted, especially since the assessee provided the document supporting the approval. No other arguments were advanced.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of investment in property and certain credits. The Assessing Officer's additions based on these unexplained amounts were challenged by the assessee, who argued she had sufficient income and savings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made payments for property and other transactions, but her capacity to do so from declared income and past savings was questionable.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. It set aside the addition of Rs. 54,000/-, finding that the assessee's explanation regarding loan repayment to M/s Mohan Broker Agency was not adequately considered. However, the addition of Rs. 12,20,600/- for the purchase of immovable property was sustained as the source of funds remained unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings for Assessment Year 2011-12 were quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05.01.2024. The Revenue had preferred an appeal against this quantum order before the ITAT, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2024, confirming the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. The Ld. DR did not controvert this fact. Based on these facts, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. The principle applied is that when additions or disallowances are deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings would not survive. Therefore, the penalty order was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the transactions in question were recorded in the books of accounts of the husband and the assessee's bank statement, and thus did not constitute unexplained cash credits attracting Section 68. The impugned assessment and the order of the CIT(Appeal) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind. Furthermore, the first proviso to Section 68, which was introduced in Finance Act 2012 with effect from April 1, 2013, was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal after considering the application for condonation of delay, noting the respondent did not object or provide contrary evidence. Subsequently, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and that the tax should be charged as per Section 164(2) of the Income Tax Act at the rates applicable to an Association of Persons/Individual, not at MMR.
The Tribunal noted that maintaining a day-to-day stock register for a restaurant business is practically impossible. The decline in GP rate was minimal and attributable to increased turnover. Relying on case laws, the Tribunal found that mere deficiency in books of accounts or rejection thereof does not automatically lead to additions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement. Since the evidence relied upon by the AO was retracted, the addition was not sustainable.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee had already offered the gain to tax in the revised return voluntarily and much before the notice for reassessment. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was a completed assessment and no incriminating material was found during the search, the AO could not make additions based on other material. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the land in question was rural agricultural land and therefore not a capital asset. Consequently, the capital gains tax levied on its sale was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had genuinely purchased and sold shares online through a recognized broker at prevailing market rates, incurring a loss due to market conditions. The AO failed to establish any link or direct evidence against the assessee's transactions.
The Tribunal held that 'Dharmada' amounts collected by the assessee were not part of sales consideration and were earmarked for charitable purposes. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court judgments stating that such amounts are not taxable income if held in trust for charity.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry during remand proceedings was misdirected. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence produced by the assessee, including the cash book and sales ledgers, supported the claim that the credit card purchases were made from sale proceeds of marble idols. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the survey team physically verified the stock and valued it based on rates provided by the assessee's employees. The assessee's explanation for the difference in stock valuation, citing errors in quantity calculation and incorrect rates, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as the assessee did not maintain a stock register, making their reply unverifiable. The AO concluded that the stock records were not properly maintained and the declared closing stock value was not verifiable. The AO added the excess stock of Rs. 22,68,327/- to the total income as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal, after examining the submissions and the material on record, found that the assessee had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy in stock valuation. The valuation done during the survey, in the presence of employees and independent witnesses, was considered by the AO as authentic. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that in the absence of a proper stock register and a verifiable explanation for the excess stock found, the addition made under section 69 read with section 115BBE was justified. The Tribunal did not find any error in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the addition. The issue of applicability of section 69B was not explicitly decided as the addition was sustained under section 69.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the land was residential or stock-in-trade, and that the AO correctly applied Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) by treating the difference between the purchase price and DLC value as income. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had made a conscious decision to treat the cash sales as business income, which was evident from the assessment order. The PCIT's attempt to recharacterize these cash sales as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE was not justified, especially when the AO had considered the provisions of section 115BBE in a subsequent year for a different addition and had consciously chosen not to invoke it for the cash sales in question. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on a slip found on WhatsApp and the AO's working of sales based on weighted average. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the issue was debatable and the AO had taken a considered view. The Tribunal also referred to High Court decisions supporting the view that invoking section 263 for debatable issues or where the AO had taken a conscious view is not appropriate. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the PCIT's order was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had made a conscious decision to treat the cash sales as business income, which was evident from the assessment order. The PCIT's attempt to recharacterize these cash sales as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE was not justified, especially when the AO had considered the provisions of section 115BBE in a subsequent year for a different addition and had consciously chosen not to invoke it for the cash sales in question. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on a slip found on WhatsApp and the AO's working of sales based on weighted average. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the issue was debatable and the AO had taken a considered view. The Tribunal also referred to High Court decisions supporting the view that invoking section 263 for debatable issues or where the AO had taken a conscious view is not appropriate. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the PCIT's order was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the absence of mala fide intention and considering the CBDT's benevolent circular extending the time limit. The Tribunal also restored the application for deciding afresh on merits, giving another opportunity to the applicant to produce the required documents.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the application without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Bench felt that the assessee should be given another chance to present their case before the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that cash advances, representing an outflow of funds, do not qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined in Section 271AAB, even if surrendered. The deeming provisions of Sections 69 and 69B cannot be automatically extended to penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB.
The tribunal held that the activities mentioned in objects 3 and 6 were not conducted by the trust and there was no evidence of profit-making. Furthermore, a subsequent CBDT circular extended the time for filing such applications, making the rejection on time-barred grounds unsustainable.
The tribunal held that the activities mentioned in objects 3 and 6 were not conducted by the trust and there was no evidence of profit-making. Furthermore, a subsequent CBDT circular extended the time for filing such applications, making the rejection on time-barred grounds unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without a valid notice under section 148 of the Act and that the approval for reopening was not proper, lacking independent application of mind by the competent authority. The notice was also not served properly and was time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice provisions under section 282 r.w.r. 127 do not presume communication by placing notice on an e-portal. Following the principles of natural justice and a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found that the assessee could not be expected to constantly monitor the e-portal for notices. The CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was not served within the prescribed time limit and lacked a PAN, making the subsequent assessment order illegal and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 3 was partly allowed, and Ground No. 4 was dismissed as general.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the entire income of the appellant trustee shall be subject to Normal Tax Rate as per the proviso to section 164(2) of the Act, as applicable in the case of an AOP. The impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was found to be infirmity and perverse.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's reasoning was flawed. The NFAC had rejected the assessee's claim based on several points, including the lack of weight and number of gold bars in purchase bills, insufficient documentary evidence of sales, difficulty in accepting 93 persons physically contacting the assessee on the eve of demonetization, and the assessee not being well-known. The assessee countered these by stating purchase invoices with supplier details were submitted, sales details were provided and ignored by the AO, the public rush for gold during demonetization is a known fact, and PAN and other details of purchasers were given, with only two denying transactions. The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the amount of sales was added to income and taxes paid, making Section 68 inapplicable. The Tribunal found the NFAC's order devoid of the assessee's submissions and relied on irrelevant case laws. The Tribunal concluded that the application of Section 68 read with Section 115BBE by the AO to the amount accounted for sales by the assessee was illegal. The Tribunal did not explicitly state what was decided on each issue but implied the assessee's grounds were valid.
The Tribunal held that since the ITSC order accepted the firm's transactions and the revenue did not dispute this, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Consequently, the grounds related to these additions were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition for unexplained cash deposits as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of sales receipts. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 40A(3) disallowance, noting that the AO did not adequately dispute the assessee's submissions regarding cash deposits into the bank.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. However, taking a liberal view, the assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and furnish explanations before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI is permissible. It followed the decisions of the Apex Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in Roshan Korgaonkar.