ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not a mandatory requirement for obtaining registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the documents submitted by the applicant regarding the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and had received Form 2 from the Income Tax Department. As the ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the claim of enhanced agricultural income, made during assessment proceedings and not in the original return or revised return, was not admissible. The Tribunal also noted that the proceedings under section 153A are for the benefit of revenue and do not allow for fresh claims. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were upheld in part.

The Tribunal held that the additions regarding sundry creditors, loans, and deposits were based on a 'cooked' account and directed their deletion. The addition for unexplained investment in land was deleted based on an affidavit which was not controverted. The profit estimation was directed to be based on a corrected turnover, with a slight modification to the presumptive rate.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed filed against the order under Section 143(3) and not Section 143(1) as concluded by the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as infructuous was baseless. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the claim of enhanced agricultural income made during assessment proceedings u/s 153A was not admissible as it was not claimed in the original return. The Tribunal noted that while the source of investment can be from undisclosed agriculture income, the claim must be substantiated with proper evidence, which was lacking in this case.

The Tribunal held that registration under the RPT Act, 1959, is not a mandatory requirement for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. It also found that the CIT(E) failed to consider documents uploaded by the applicant regarding the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal held that while agricultural income is exempt, it should be disclosed in the return. A claim for increased agricultural income made during assessment proceedings under Section 153A, which was not claimed in the original return, is not admissible. However, the Tribunal found that the unrecorded expenditure on construction could be adjusted, partly allowing an appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of agricultural income as the source of investments was not adequately substantiated. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not declared the full agricultural income in the returns filed and made a revised claim during assessment proceedings, which was not admissible. The addition made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the claim for enhanced agricultural income made during assessment proceedings u/s 153A, which was not claimed in the original return, is not admissible as it was an attempt to explain investments and reduce tax liability. The addition made by the AO regarding unexplained investment in agricultural land was upheld in ground No. 1 of ITA no. 931/JP/2024, leading to the appeal being allowed. However, in ITA no. 936/JP/2024, ground No. 2, concerning the unrecorded expenditure on construction, was partly allowed, with the AO directed to consider the correct unaccounted investment.

The Tribunal held that the claim for enhanced agriculture income made during the assessment proceedings under section 153A was not admissible because it was not claimed in the original return or the return filed under section 153A. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's argument regarding the turnover of his liquor business and the applicability of section 44AD was considered, and a portion of the addition was confirmed while another was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details regarding the source of the cash withdrawal, supported by evidence and an affidavit. The lower authorities did not adequately discuss these explanations. Therefore, the cash could not be considered unexplained money subject to Section 69A and the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the claim regarding cash withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 36,51,816/-. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should not have rejected the claim for agriculture income solely based on the sale of onions, and the remaining sum of Rs. 5,48,550/- should have been considered as agricultural income.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition related to the source of cash deposits and the agricultural income claimed by the assessee. It directed the deletion of the second addition.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of packing material was a contract for sale, not a work contract, and therefore, TDS under Section 194C was not attracted. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee is a cooperative society and directed the AO to consider the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on its merits.

The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not a mandatory prerequisite for obtaining registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, as the two statutes have independent provisions and implications. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s objections on this ground were untenable.

The Tribunal held that non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, cannot be the sole ground for denying registration under the Income Tax Act, especially when the assessee has obtained registration from the Devasthan Vibhag. The issue of genuineness of activities was restored to the CIT(E) for re-examination with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and the CPC's intimation, directing the CPC to revise the assessment. It held that a private trust with a determinate sole beneficiary should be treated as a taxable entity with individual slab benefits, aligning with the principles of representative assessee taxation under Sections 160, 161, and 166, which allow for taxation at the beneficiary's individual rates.

The Tribunal held that non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not a bar to obtaining registration under the Income Tax Act, especially when the Act itself does not mandate such prior registration for achieving its objects. The issue of genuineness of activities was restored to the CIT(E) for re-examination with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not a mandatory prerequisite for obtaining registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, as there is no specific law requiring compliance with the RPT Act for achieving the assessee's objects. The issue of genuineness of activities was restored to the CIT(E) for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO and were therefore quashed. Additionally, the land was confirmed to be rural agricultural land, outside the definition of a capital asset, thus capital gains could not be taxed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-2. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found that for specific amounts related to Raghavan Sasi Prabhu (Rs. 3,39,417/-), Address Home Retail Private Limited (Rs. 80,600/-), and East West Pipeline Limited (Rs. 24,74,400/-), the additions were not justified, primarily due to the assessee's consistent cash method of accounting and supporting evidence of non-receipt or erroneous TDS deduction. These amounts were directed to be deleted. For the remaining difference pertaining to the Rosmerta Group (Rs. 32,06,575/- and Rs. 61,500/-), the issue was restored to the Ld. AO for re-verification, with directions to consider the overall receipts based on the cash system of accounting and to utilize Section 133(6) if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not served within the prescribed timeline. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 144 was void ab initio and required to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee is a senior citizen, he is still required to check the portal and stay in contact with his AR. However, the penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was found to be invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of the offence, thereby depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity to explain.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age and circumstances. However, noting the consistent non-compliance by the assessee before the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary details regarding cash sales, and the AO had accepted part of these sales as genuine. The Tribunal found no cogent reason to reject the entire sales and treat them as unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not rejected the books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal on a technical ground. The case was selected for complete scrutiny based on valid reasons, and the AO had not exceeded jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the department was allowed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has the right to choose its method of valuation (Net Asset Value or Discounted Cash Flow Method) as per Rule 11UA(2). The AO cannot force a different method. Since the assessee opted for the DCF method, and the valuation report was based on it, the AO's rejection of the report and addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities but failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the cash deposits. While the lower authorities upheld the addition, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if no settlement is reached under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the violation of natural justice and the assessee's affidavit. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had no power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a non-resident with no Indian source of income. While the revenue alleged incomplete details regarding the source of payment from outside India, the Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after due verification of facts.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and had not submitted evidence. While the lower authorities confirmed the addition, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to give one more chance to the assessee to present evidence. Thus, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It held that while the mobile data contained relevant information, its use as sole evidence for additions was questionable, especially without cross-examination. The Tribunal applied a GP rate of 8% for estimated business income on unexplained purchases for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20, modifying the additions. The addition related to unaccounted sales for AY 2019-20 was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department has no objection to the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the affidavit filed by the assessee. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned a 14-day delay in filing one of the appeals, attributing it to technical glitches. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to consider the application upon submission of the RPT Act registration and documents proving genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material in cases of completed assessments. The Tribunal allowed one appeal entirely and remanded the other for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had dropped the penalty proceedings and the penalty order itself, based on a prior appellate order that deleted a significant addition related to turnover. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored both matters back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to decide afresh after the assessee provides the Registration under RPT Act, 1959 and documents proving genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed assessments initiated under Section 153A post-search, additions cannot be made without incriminating material, as confirmed by Supreme Court decisions. For one appeal, additional evidence was admitted and the matter remanded to the AO. For the other, the addition was directed to be deleted.