ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that when purchases are unverifiable, income should be estimated based on the Gross Profit (GP) rate. Considering the assessee's past history and industry norms, a GP rate of 12% was deemed appropriate, and since the declared profit was higher, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition. It noted that the assessee's declared gross profit rate was 13.05%, which was higher than the 12.5% considered reasonable by the High Court in similar cases of bogus purchases. Therefore, no further addition was warranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to miscommunication and inadvertence. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the alleged excess amount, violating principles of natural justice. The addition was made without confronting the assessee with the material collected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, despite it being a last opportunity. The appeal was decided ex parte. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal but dismissed it on merits as no new material was presented to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence regarding additions on account of Pratapeshwar Mandir and Nandini Cow Account, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh verification. For the addition on account of Fixed Deposit, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unreasoned and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision on merits by the CIT(A) should be independent.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was adjudicated ex-parte by the AO and the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 6 lac addition to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify whether the penalty is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Since the notice in this case did not clearly specify the limb, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that cash deposits were out of prior withdrawals. It noted that withdrawals exceeded deposits and decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was illegal and without jurisdiction. It found that since the reopening was based on seized material from a search in another case, Section 153C should have been applied, not Section 147.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity for hearing or considering additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a revised return filed during the pendency of assessment proceedings, even if filed after the prescribed time limit under Section 139(5), can be considered a valid disclosure of income, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. The argument of non-service of physical notices was not accepted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, finding that the department failed to controvert or rebut the findings of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account was not justified as there was no material to doubt the correctness or completeness of the accounts. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of demonetized currency as unexplained cash credit without proper justification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Department's appeal. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of additions made based on documents seized during a search, and the assessee's challenge to the assessment proceedings' legality.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the trading addition by accepting the assessee's declared GP rate of 3.59%, considering the increase in manufacturing costs. The ground related to PF and ESI disallowance was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and repayment through account payee cheques, to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence beyond the statement of Shri Praveen Jain to sustain the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the JCIT(A) had not specifically discussed the TDS credit claim under Section 194H. The Tribunal also considered the submissions and judicial precedents supporting the assessee's claim as a Kachha Arthia. They found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's age, illiteracy, and lack of proper communication regarding notices. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details of the creditworthiness of M/s Aditi Gems Pvt Ltd for the year the loan was accepted. Relying on Supreme Court and other High Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination regarding the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the submissions regarding the delay were not found to have merit.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order. It held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served and the approval for reassessment was obtained in a consolidated and improper manner, violating Section 151.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's action in reopening the assessment and making additions based on third-party information was questionable, a certain percentage of profit should be imputed. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Clarity Gold, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 5%.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that the liabilities ceased to exist or that the assessee obtained any benefit by way of remission or cessation. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.