ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal were not sustainable, citing the principle of avoiding double taxation and referring to Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided multiple email IDs over time and directed the assessee to be vigilant and participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's repeated failure to cure the defects in the condonation application, despite ample opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits.

The tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper verification and did not discuss the assessee's submissions or account entries before making the addition. The AO also incorrectly applied Section 69C when the issue pertained to sales by the assessee, not purchases.

The Tribunal held that since the undisclosed amounts were incorporated into the assessee's books of accounts and the assessee runs a hospital, these amounts should be treated as business income and not income from other sources. Therefore, Section 115BBE was not justified.

The tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s observations were general and lacked specific comments on whether the activities were charitable. The tribunal also noted that the assessee had submitted registration under the RPT Act after the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it found no merit in the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of reasons for reopening. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court's Bombay bench.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the ground related to disallowance of interest on loans, stating no notional disallowance can be made. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of estimated disallowance of salary expenses for lack of proper basis.

The Tribunal heard arguments from both the assessee and the revenue. The specific decision on the merits of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of an addition of Rs. 11,65,000/- made on account of unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal found that the seized documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were personal in nature and did not relate to the assessee's transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the applicant to cure defects rather than outright rejection. The grounds for rejection related to the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, activities outside India, and beneficiary community were set aside. The ground of non-genuineness was also set aside with a direction for the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash deposit, including sales of agricultural produce, old furniture, and paintings, along with past savings. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal were not sustainable, citing the principle of avoiding double taxation and referring to Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the department subsequently issued a notice under Section 153C, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision. Consequently, the department's appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the department had complied with the High Court's decision by issuing a notice under Section 153C. Therefore, the department's appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was adjudicated ex-parte in both the lower proceedings and that the assessee claimed not to have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Citing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the dispute should be decided on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to consider the factual aspects raised by the assessee after due verification and charge the correct income, if any, in accordance with the law, after affording the assessee a proper opportunity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal were not sustainable, citing the principle of avoiding double taxation and referring to Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and restored the case to the AO for denovo assessment to provide an opportunity of being heard. The penalty appeal's fate was linked to the quantum appeal's decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for registration under the RPT Act and was likely to obtain it. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to decide after the assessee provides the RPT Act registration and other required documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and restored the case to the AO for denovo assessment to provide an opportunity of being heard. The penalty appeal's fate was linked to the quantum appeal's decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for registration under the RPT Act and was likely to obtain it. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to decide after the assessee provides the RPT Act registration and other required documents.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the assessee herself was interested in settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute is not settled for other reasons.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the assessee was settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The Bench clarified that if Form No. 4 is not issued under the scheme, the assessee would be at liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for registration under the RPT Act and was likely to obtain it. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to decide after the assessee provides the RPT Act registration and other required documents.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and applied conscious consideration. The PCIT cannot substitute their view for the AO's when the AO's order is not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was lethargic in pursuing the case, a crucial notice from the CIT(A) was not sent to the AR's email, and there was a significant delay between notices. Observing a potential violation of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the purchase price of shares, paid from disclosed sources, cannot be taxed again, especially when the capital gain was already settled under the IDS scheme. The addition of the purchase price was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that registration under the RPT Act is not a prerequisite for registration under Section 12AB. It also found that the Association was not a private trust but for public benefit and that the grounds for rejection regarding genuineness of activities and delay in filing were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that registration under the RPT Act is not a prerequisite for registration under Section 12AB. It also found that the Association was not a private trust but for public benefit and that the grounds for rejection regarding genuineness of activities and delay in filing were not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not adequately presented submissions or documents before the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds as the assessee had filed the original return and paid taxes. The Tribunal found that the sources of the amount in question were explained, with Rs.9,00,000/- paid by the assessee's husband from his account (rent received by the assessee from him) and Rs.6,74,067/- paid from the assessee's account, with immediate credit from her husband's account.

The Tribunal held that if an investment is duly recorded in the assessee's books of accounts and the source of credit is not disputed, it cannot be considered an unexplained investment under Section 69. The addition should have been made on the credit itself if it was unexplained, not on the subsequent investment.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities, the case should be decided on merits. To ensure natural justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The penalty appeal was also restored to be decided in accordance with the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities, the case should be decided on merits. To ensure natural justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The penalty appeal was also restored to be decided in accordance with the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with notices and appear before the CIT(E). However, considering the nature of the applicant as a Samiti, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the appellant to appear before the CIT(E) and furnish necessary documents. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient reasons to initiate reassessment proceedings and that the assessee's objections regarding the validity of these proceedings were not raised in a timely manner. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's failure to respond to notices issued during the assessment process.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with notices and appear before the CIT(E). However, considering the nature of the applicant as a Samiti, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the appellant to appear before the CIT(E) and furnish necessary documents. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with notices and appear before the CIT(E). However, considering the nature of the applicant as a Samiti, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the appellant to appear before the CIT(E) and furnish necessary documents. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with notices and appear before the CIT(E). However, considering the nature of the applicant as a Samiti, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the appellant to appear before the CIT(E) and furnish necessary documents. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with notices and appear before the CIT(E). However, considering the nature of the applicant as a Samiti, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the appellant to appear before the CIT(E) and furnish necessary documents. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that no application for condonation of delay was filed. Despite the appellant praying for withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation, as no sufficient cause was provided for the delay.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount, representing sundry debtors, should be treated as business income and not as an investment under Section 69. Consequently, the special tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and evidence to the CIT(E) regarding various issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all material documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a mistaken belief of withdrawal. The appeal filed by the assessee was not requested to be withdrawn, and the application under Section 154 was not disposed of.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was not passed on merits. Despite the assessee's non-compliance with notices, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity by remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application and application for condonation of delay due to a lack of willingness and a consistent pattern of non-compliance before lower authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without addressing the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that RRBs are considered co-operative banks and are excluded from the benefit of Section 80P deduction due to the insertion of sub-section (4) by the Finance Act, 2006. Only Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) and Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Banks (PCARDB) are eligible for this deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the department subsequently issued a notice under Section 153C, their appeal against the CIT(A)'s order had become infructuous. The High Court's decision stated that if seized material relates to a person other than the one searched, proceedings must be under Section 153C, not Section 147/148.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee himself was interested in withdrawing the appeal by settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal further stated that if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 for any other reasons, the assessee shall be at liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal in accordance with the law. The principle derived is that an appeal can be withdrawn if the assessee intends to settle the dispute under a tax settlement scheme, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement fails.