Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not justified. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on information received from the Investigation Unit, Kolkata, alleging accommodation loan entries. However, the reassessment order ultimately made additions on account of unexplained share application money. The Tribunal noted that the AO proceeded to make the addition without disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO's belief for reopening was based on suspicion rather than a firm belief of income escapement. The judgment cites various High Court and Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that suspicion cannot take the place of belief and that reopening requires a tangible reason. The Tribunal found that the AO did not establish a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Consequently, the reassessment order was held to be bad in law. The addition of Rs. 1,50,32,635/- on account of share application money and the addition of Rs. 3,75,816/- on account of commission were deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had dealt with all aspects of the matter and correctly concluded that the assessee had submitted all necessary details regarding the expenses incurred. The Tribunal noted that ledger accounts, bills, and vouchers were produced, TDS under Section 194C was paid, ITR acknowledgments were provided, and all transactions were carried out through banking channels. Therefore, the expenses could not be held as bogus. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that it cannot be compelled to produce its parties to prove the genuineness of transactions, and by submitting the necessary documents, the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus. The Tribunal also observed that if the details were available with the AO, necessary inquiries could have been conducted by the AO. Regarding the Patwari's report about no agricultural activity, the Tribunal noted that the assessee never claimed agricultural activity, and the land filling and landscaping were necessary for the land to be sold. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 found that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not substantiated by documentary evidence. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct unaccounted investment in construction based on revised figures provided by the assessee.
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 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 found that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not substantiated by documentary evidence. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct unaccounted investment in construction based on revised figures provided by the assessee.
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 assessee sought to withdraw the cross-objection as they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the cross-objection and also dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not substantiated by documentary evidence. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct unaccounted investment in construction based on revised figures provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not substantiated by documentary evidence. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct unaccounted investment in construction based on revised figures provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on technical grounds, specifically addressing grounds 1 and 2. The Tribunal noted that the issues on which the PCIT sought to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 were concluded by an intimation dated 16.10.2018, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. This intimation was issued more than two years prior to the notice dated 14.02.2023 issued under Section 263. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. vs. PCIT, which held that for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 263, the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order and not from the date of the reassessment order. This legal position was further confirmed by the Apex Court, which dismissed the revenue's SLP. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was barred by limitation. As the appeal was allowed on technical grounds, the grounds relating to the merits of the disputes (grounds 3 to 6) were rendered educative in nature. Ground 7 was general and did not require a finding. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not substantiated by documentary evidence. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct unaccounted investment in construction based on revised figures provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to sundry creditors and loans/deposits, finding that the assessee had discharged their burden of proof. Additions for unexplained investment in land were also deleted based on an affidavit not controverted by the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not substantiated by documentary evidence. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct unaccounted investment in construction based on revised figures provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of cash withdrawal from various concerns, which was supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the cash could not be considered unexplained money under Section 69A, and the levy under Section 115BBE was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of packing material was a contract for sale, not a work contract, and thus TDS under Section 194C was not required. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) after verifying other conditions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on agricultural income, as the assessee had produced sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) should not have rejected the claim of loans and advances from agriculturists without further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on agricultural income, as the assessee had produced sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) should not have rejected the claim of loans and advances from agriculturists without further inquiry.
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 the surcharge levied by the CPC was erroneous as the assessee trust was not a representative assessee under Section 160 of the Act. The Tribunal directed the CPC to revise the intimation, treating the trust as a taxable entity with slab benefits applicable to an individual.
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 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 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 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 partially allowed the appeal. It directed the deletion of certain additions based on the cash method of accounting and third-party confirmations. However, for a difference of Rs. 61,500/- and the overall receipt verification, the issue was restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons plausible. The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable as the assessee had provided all necessary documentation for cash sales, and the AO had accepted part of the sales on the same evidence.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 151 days, considering the assessee's age and the circumstances preventing them from receiving notices. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
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 case was not a limited scrutiny case from the outset, as indicated by the reasons for selection. Therefore, the AO did not expand the scope of scrutiny without proper procedure. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the appeal on a technical ground was found to be in error.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, as the notice dated 11.04.2018 was issued more than six years after the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the assessment was void ab initio.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to make any enquiry regarding the time deposits, such as the bank name, account numbers, nature of the deposit, and its source. Crucially, neither the assessment order nor the appellate order mentioned the specific section under which the addition was made. The Tribunal held that the non-mentioning of the precise provision of law makes the impugned addition bad in law, citing decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in Shri Ram Lal vs. ITO and Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that the funds originated from savings from Indian Navy service and accumulated agricultural income. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not brought on record any evidence to suggest otherwise. Relying on the decision in Ayodhya Jajra vs. CIT(A), where the Tribunal allowed deletion of addition for unexplained cash credit from accumulated savings, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the lower authorities deserved to be deleted. The addition was therefore deleted.
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 noted that the assessee was a non-resident and had no source of income in India. While the assessee provided some documents, complete details of the source of payment were not furnished. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuing shares as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO was not permitted to interfere with the valuation done in accordance with the prescribed methods, and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and did not adequately present his defense. However, to ensure a decision on merits, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), as the time provided for submissions was only between 6 to 7 days on multiple occasions. The Tribunal emphasized that principles of natural justice are fundamental to the administration of justice and are part of the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the contention of the assessee regarding the lack of fair opportunity was noted, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to consider the factual aspects raised by the assessee after due verification and charge the correct income, if any, in accordance with law, while affording the assessee a proper opportunity. The assessee is cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments and is expected to cooperate. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 158 days in filing the appeal, noting that the email ID used for notices belonged to the counsel and that the principles of natural justice were violated as confirmed by the assessee's affidavit. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity in proceedings before the lower authorities, which is a violation of natural justice guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Regarding the dismissal for non-prosecution, the Tribunal noted that Section 250(6) of the Act, as interpreted by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, restricts the CIT(A)'s power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the factual aspects raised by the assessee after due verification and charge the correct income, if any, after affording the assessee a proper opportunity. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
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 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 partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition for unexplained purchases by estimating profit at 8% based on past business history. The addition for unaccounted sales was deleted due to lack of evidence and violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities (AO and CIT(A)) and failed to submit documents or evidence. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee remained lethargic. However, the Tribunal felt that the dispute should be decided on merits and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal held that its fate would depend on the decision of the quantum appeal and therefore restored it to the file of the AO for action in accordance with law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the AO.
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 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 ITAT allowed the appeal for AY 2017-18, directing deletion of the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. For AY 2018-19, the matter was remanded to the AO to consider additional evidence.
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 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 ITAT allowed the appeal for AY 2017-18, directing deletion of the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. For AY 2018-19, the matter was remanded to the AO to consider additional evidence.
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.