ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal noted that the failure to be registered under the RPT Act was a curable defect. Since the assessee had since applied for RPT Act registration, the Tribunal restored both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had previously taken a view that registration under the RPT Act is not enforceable once registered under the Companies Act as a charitable entity. Considering this and the Supreme Court's observations on granting registration based on stated objectives, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-decide the issue of registration under Section 12AB afresh. Consequently, the rejection of recognition under Section 80G was also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for rejection (lack of registration under RPT Act) was curable. Since the assessee had since applied for RPT Act registration, the Tribunal restored both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after the assessee produces proof of RPT Act registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should reconsider the matter afresh. The Tribunal also observed that the registration u/s 80G is consequential to the registration u/s 12AB, and therefore, it also needs to be reconsidered.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had taken a view that for entities registered under the Companies Act, Section 12A registration under the RPT Act is not strictly enforceable. Considering the assessee is ready to furnish details and referencing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had taken a view that RPT Act registration cannot be enforced for companies registered under the Companies Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Supreme Court in Ananda Social and Education Trust case allowed registration based on stated objectives and proposed activities, even without prior activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the deposit of costs, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) for further proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by submitting purchase invoices and confirmations from suppliers, which were verified. The valuation by the registered valuer at market price without distinguishing purity was considered inappropriate. The Tribunal found that the department failed to establish that the stock was acquired from undisclosed income and that the assessee maintained stock valuation on a cost basis.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 of the Act was defective because it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) (concealed income or inaccurate particulars) was violated by the assessee, thus prejudicing the assessee's right to defend himself.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal, as they intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sales registers and other documents showing the cash was from sales. The AO had not brought any contrary evidence, and the rejection of books under Section 145(3) precluded a separate addition under Section 68. The Tribunal followed a prior decision covering this issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3636 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), accepting the assessee's argument of non-receipt and the affidavit. On merits, the Tribunal held that the intimation levying fees under Section 234E, issued on 12.03.2014, was bad in law because the enabling power to levy such fees through intimation under Section 200A came into effect only from 01.06.2015, by way of Finance Act, 2015. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the demand.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3636 days, holding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The levy of fees u/s 234E for intimations issued before 01.06.2015 was held to be bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3636 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's affidavit about delayed service/non-receipt of the intimation, citing the need for a lenient view based on Supreme Court precedents. On merits, the Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E through an intimation issued under Section 200A/206CB before 01.06.2015 (the effective date of the relevant Finance Act amendment) was bad in law and quashed the demand.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's application to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn due to moving an application for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to settlement proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a communication gap. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not adequately examine the chargeability of gifts received by the assessee under Section 56(2)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3636 days, noting that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal due to non-receipt of the intimation and reliance on apex court decisions. The Tribunal further held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for intimations issued before 01.06.2015 was bad in law, quashing the demand.

The Tribunal noted that the cash sales, though potentially unusual due to demonetization, were recorded in the books of account and supported by evidence. The rejection of books of accounts was not justified, and the cash deposits were explained as sales proceeds. The addition made by the AO was vacated.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions, as they failed to consider the assessee's detailed explanations, documentary evidence, and reconciliation of cash and stock. The Tribunal determined that the discrepancies in gold and silver jewellery, after proper reconciliation, were negligible and that the director's statement during search was based on incorrect initial figures and his subsequent clarifications were not duly appreciated. Consequently, the additions made by the lower authorities for unexplained cash and stock were directed to be deleted.

The tribunal condoned the 3636-day delay, accepting the assessee's affidavit stating late service of the intimation and that the order had gone to spam. On merits, the tribunal quashed the levy of fees under Section 234E, stating that the power to levy such fees under Section 200A/206CB came into effect from June 1, 2015, via the Finance Act, 2015, and therefore, an intimation issued before this date was bad in law, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3636 days on the grounds that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, having not received the intimation in a timely manner. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for intimations issued before 01.06.2015 was bad in law, following various High Court and Apex Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3636 days by relying on the affidavit of the assessee and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a lenient view. The Tribunal also held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for intimations issued before 01.06.2015 is bad in law, citing various High Court and ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's affidavit regarding non-receipt of the intimation. The levy of fees u/s 234E was also held to be bad in law as the intimation was issued prior to the amendment enabling such levy.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to costs, citing the principles of natural justice. However, it also noted the assessee's failure to diligently produce relevant documents and explain the source of funds, leading to a decision to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and with the Revenue's concurrence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee acquired ownership of the land on April 10, 2013, and subsequently received payments from Smt. Maya Devi. Since the assessee was the owner at the time of the agreement and subsequent payments, the amount was considered an advance for the sale of property, not a loan.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and settled the tax dues. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the non-registration under the RPT Act was not a bar for registration under Section 12AB, especially when a certificate was subsequently obtained. Furthermore, the ground of the trust being for a particular community was also found to be not substantiated. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding sufficient cause. It held that the ground of rejection based on non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, did not survive as the trust obtained the registration. The Tribunal also held that the ground based on the trust's objects benefiting a particular community was not a valid reason for rejecting the application under Section 12AB, as Section 13(1)(b) is for income computation, not registration purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act to the deceased assessee were invalid as they were issued after his death. Consequently, the assessment order and the order passed by the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated under a different provision (Section 271AAA) than the one under which the penalty was levied (Section 271(1)(c)). The show cause notice did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) violated, prejudicing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was interested in withdrawing the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Bench allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee indicated an intention to file additional evidence in Form 35, the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to file a proper application. Furthermore, the assessee had not participated before the AO, leading to a Best Judgment assessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and casual behavior before the AO and CIT(A). While finding the grounds raised to be baseless, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, restored the matter to the AO for a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the additional documents, including creditor confirmations and bank statements, were satisfactory. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not adequately address the repayment of the loan and applied the deeming fiction of Section 68 strictly.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), the receipts of each educational institution should be considered separately, not the aggregate receipts of all institutions. Consequently, if individual institutions' receipts are below Rs. 1 crore, they are eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not charitable or religious in nature but rather personal and family affairs disguised as a public charitable trust, based on the analysis of its financial statements. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was upheld.