ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal condoned the 6-day delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause. For the appeals concerning Section 12AB, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without proper inquiry. The assessee provided a certificate for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and requested an opportunity to establish the genuineness of activities. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that circular transactions involving no actual cash movement, where sales were made against pre-existing liabilities or opening balances, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit or disallowed as expenses. Such transactions were not to be considered as income under Section 68.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days, citing sufficient cause and the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions and that the goods were likely received from a different source. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase prices through fictitious invoices.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was reopened based on information that was not fully substantiated and that the addition made by the AO was based on a selective approach without providing the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine evidence. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days, citing sufficient cause and the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days, citing sufficient cause and the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days, citing sufficient cause and the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the assessee had disclosed all primary facts during the original assessment. The AO had the material before him and any subsequent inference or error was due to his own oversight, not the assessee's failure to disclose.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments under Section 153C cannot stand when the substantive assessments against the primary entities have been set aside. The Tribunal noted the lack of incriminating material against the assessee for these protective additions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities before the CIT(A) but failed to appear or submit responses. There was a discrepancy in the email communication regarding representation. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding that the assessee society was expanding expenditures prohibited for pharma companies, indicating a commercial nature to its activities. The principle of 'substance over form' was applied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering the documents and submissions provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations and records to substantiate cash sales during the demonetization period, which were influenced by exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte and the issues were not examined on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo examination after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte and the issues were not examined on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo examination after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without examining the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte and the issues were not examined on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo examination after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal to avail benefits under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, as required by the scheme's provisions. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding that the assessee society was expanding expenditures prohibited for pharma companies, indicating a commercial nature to its activities. The principle of 'substance over form' was applied.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 74,51,800/- was made solely on the basis of a ledger found in a third-party search without providing cross-examination or corroborative evidence. The assessee had no connection with the person from whom the ledger was found.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to unaccounted purchase of Guar Gum. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal found that the interest earned on advances exceeded the interest paid, thus no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant trust has now been registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and has obtained regular registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of these developments and the appellant's prayer for dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, the Tribunal agreed with the submission.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to jewelry, citing CBDT instructions and High Court precedents regarding reasonable possession of gold ornaments based on family status and marital life. The appeals were decided based on these observations.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to jewelry, citing CBDT instructions and High Court precedents regarding reasonable possession of gold ornaments based on family status and marital life. The appeals were decided based on these observations.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to jewelry, citing CBDT instructions and High Court precedents regarding reasonable possession of gold ornaments based on family status and marital life. The appeals were decided based on these observations.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to jewelry, citing CBDT instructions and High Court precedents regarding reasonable possession of gold ornaments based on family status and marital life. The appeals were decided based on these observations.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to jewelry, citing CBDT instructions and High Court precedents regarding reasonable possession of gold ornaments based on family status and marital life. The appeals were decided based on these observations.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to the treatment of cash credit entries and the disallowance of the peak credit theory. It was held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering that the entries represented both loans taken and given, and that loan receipts, being capital in nature, are not taxable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that at worst, only the peak of the transactions could be brought to tax. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had made errors in calculating the negative peak and in treating verifiable entries. Regarding the additional ground concerning the addition under section 44AD, the Tribunal noted that the AO had used an incorrect figure for the declared income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds concerning the jewellery seizure, relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1914 and the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT, Alwar v. Satya Narain Patni and the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Chaddha v. ITO, holding that the excess jewellery found was not unexplained in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to taking cash loans aggregating to Rs. 65,65,000/- during the search, which were not recorded in regular books of accounts. These loans were for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17, amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 40,65,000/- respectively. The judgment details the AO's findings regarding cash loans given and taken, and the CIT(A)'s partial relief. The Tribunal considered the assessee's grounds regarding the treatment of loan transactions, the peak credit theory, and the alleged incorrect calculation of negative peak. It also addressed the revenue's ground concerning the failure to reconcile loans. The specific findings on each issue and the final decision are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal is consolidating the appeals for disposal. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's additional ground regarding the incorrect figure used for Section 44AD addition.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was bad in law due to violation of the principle of natural justice as it was passed ex-parte without proper notice. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that income surrendered during a survey and explained as business income cannot be taxed under deeming provisions like Section 69B read with Section 115BBE if the revenue cannot prove it's from an unrelated source.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals involved common issues, except for the disputed amounts. The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) erred in treating entries in seized records as unaccounted cash credit without considering that these represented both loans taken and given, and that capital receipts are not taxable. The assessee also argued for the application of the peak credit theory and challenged the CIT(A)'s calculations and confirmation of repeated additions. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in reducing the addition as the assessee failed to reconcile unaccounted loans. The judgment indicates that the Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides regarding the treatment of cash credits, loans taken and given, the applicability of the peak credit theory, and the reconciliation of transactions. The specific findings on each issue and the final decision are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, as it cuts off before the Tribunal's final pronouncement on the merits of the grounds raised. However, the structure suggests a detailed examination of the evidence and legal arguments concerning the disputed additions.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents and for proper hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide timely responses.

The Tribunal held that the addition by way of NP rate enhancement could not be made without rejecting the books of accounts and without following the provisions of Section 145 of the Act. The AO had not issued any show cause notice for the application of Section 145, nor pointed out any specific defects in the assessee's books of accounts.

The tribunal noted that the appellant had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. This was due to the trust obtaining regular registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i)/12AB(1)(a) of the Act, taking advantage of a CBDT circular extending timelines. The order of registration dated 05-07-2024 was not disputed by the Revenue.

The appellant later filed an application to withdraw the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant obtained regular registration from A.Y. 2022-23 to 2026-27. The Revenue did not dispute the order of registration.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock, which was offered as business income and routed through audited financial results, could not be treated as undisclosed investment under Section 69B. The Tribunal also noted that no books of accounts or documents were impounded during the survey.

The Tribunal held that income discovered during a survey on business premises should be treated as business income and cannot be re-categorized as undisclosed investment. The AO's action of taxing it under Section 69B was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the addition to salary income was based on incorrect facts, as the declared gross salary was higher than one of the figures used by the AO. Therefore, the addition under the salary head was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had since registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, concerns remained about the genuineness of activities and the inadvertent incorrect statement regarding the campus takeover. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(E) did not specifically requisition details related to the campus takeover in the show-cause notices.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide a registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and offered insufficient explanation regarding the non-genuineness of activities and application of income. The Tribunal found the appellant's approach to be casual.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met. The original assessment order was not found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's death was brought to the CIT(A)'s notice. While the legal heir claimed to have registered herself, specific proof was lacking. The assessment order was passed ex-parte.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered only the net income as capital gain and had not furnished the details of the cost of acquisition. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to verify the cost of acquisition and compute the correct income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered only the net income as capital gain and had not furnished the details of the cost of acquisition. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to verify the cost of acquisition and compute the correct income.

The Tribunal held that the AO had erred by considering the sale value as capital gain without deducting the cost of acquisition and indexation. The assessee had provided details of actual transactions and costs, which were not properly considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence for the cost of acquisition and improvement, rendering the new claims unverifiable. Consequently, the AO's addition of Rs. 8,10,362/- as short declaration of long-term capital gain was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the cost of acquisition or improvement for the properties sold. Therefore, the AO correctly treated the entire sale proceeds as capital gain.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the cost of acquisition or improvement for the properties sold. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered only the net income as capital gain and had not furnished the details of the cost of acquisition. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to verify the cost of acquisition and compute the correct income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the cost of acquisition or improvement for the properties sold. Therefore, the AO correctly treated the entire sale proceeds as capital gain.