ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal noted the assessee's prolonged delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons, which was condoned. However, it observed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and did not present their case effectively. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed the assessee's consistent non-compliance during assessment and first appellate proceedings, which led to an ex-parte order and dismissal of appeal by CIT(A). However, considering the request for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant evidence and adjudicate the issues independently on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to technical issues with the online portal. Recognizing that the assessee was ex-parte throughout the assessment and appeal stages, the Tribunal restored both the quantum appeal (against the addition) and the penalty appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and noted that the assessee was ex-parte at lower levels. To ensure a decision on merits and provide an opportunity of being heard, both the quantum assessment and penalty appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The CIT(A) held that the Section 148 notice was invalid as it was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court in a similar case, making the subsequent assessment order ineffective. The Tribunal agreed that the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C for cases involving seized material belonging to a third party.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing costs of Rs. 3,000/- for delay condonation and an additional Rs. 5,000/- due to the assessee's negligence during assessment and appellate proceedings. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the observation of the CIT(A) that no documents were furnished was against the record, as 5 documents were uploaded by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, noting that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing an opportunity of hearing, for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices at both assessment and appellate stages, despite being 80 years old. However, considering the issues involved and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,84,000 was not justified as the assessee had explained the nature and source of the cash received from debtors on 11/11/2016, which was permissible under the gazette notification. The disallowances for Section 80C and expenses were also set aside.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s remand order, holding that the entire sale consideration for the property was received by the actual owner, Shri Khushal Chand Daga, in 2001. Since the assessee merely acted as a Power of Attorney holder and had no income from the transaction, no tax liability arose for the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of remanding it.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and could not present his defense. While the assessee was lethargic, the Tribunal restored the matters to the AO to provide one more opportunity for hearing and decision on merits, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in observing that tax must be charged under Section 115BBE when additions are made under Sections 68 and 69. The Tribunal found that the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 115BBE instead of the normal rate of tax, as the income was already disclosed and tax deposited on the basis of that disclosure.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 115BBE of the Act, as the income offered was part of regular business income and not unexplained income requiring taxation at a special rate. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, noting the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities due to lethargy. However, to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing, the matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. The lower authorities erred in disallowing the FTC solely on the ground of late filing of Form 67 without considering other aspects.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction solely on the ground of late filing of Form 67.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's books of account were accepted, they failed to provide substantive evidence for the purchases. The entry provider confirmed the transaction was bogus. Consequently, a disallowance of 10% of the impugned purchases was confirmed, and the AO was directed to delete the balance.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participative approach throughout the proceedings. Given the circumstances and the need for a fair adjudication, the matter was restored to the AO for a de-novo assessment with a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F emphasizes the completion of construction of a new residential house, not necessarily the commencement date. Judicial pronouncements support that construction can begin before the sale of the original asset, and the provision should be interpreted liberally.

The Tribunal held that under Explanation to Section 35(1)(iii) of the Act, a deduction for a sum paid to a research organization shall not be denied merely because the approval granted to the organization was subsequently withdrawn. The onus is on the authorities to monitor the entity, not on the assessee to verify its genuineness.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-participative before the AO and CIT(A). The appeal was time-barred, and the condonation of delay was granted liberally. However, due to lack of findings and the assessee's non-cooperation, the matter was restored to the AO for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-compliant and did not provide necessary information. The grounds challenging the AO's assessment and CIT(A)'s confirmation were dismissed due to non-compliance. However, for statistical purposes, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the statements recorded during the survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value and the presumption under Section 292C of the Act is not applicable as the documents were not found from the assessee's premises. Consequently, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without any legal ground. It was found that the appeal was not barred by limitation, and the deficiencies pointed out were either not valid or were addressed.

The tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision, held that additions to income cannot be made solely based on admissions in a Settlement Commission application, especially when the application was rejected as non-maintainable and no incriminating material was found during the search. The ACIT erred by making additions without considering or discussing any incriminating material. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and ACIT were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 480 days in filing the appeal, citing the 'Collector, Land & Acquisition' case. However, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO to examine the source of fixed deposits and cash deposits to verify the genuineness of renewals and sources.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The assessee's challenge to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was accepted due to improper approval obtained by the AO. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of commission income was not sustainable and liable to be deleted. Regarding capital introduction by partners and unsecured loans, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s action of setting aside the matter for de-novo assessment was an incorrect exercise of discretion. The Tribunal also held that introduction of capital by partners cannot be added back in the hands of the firm under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the ACIT erred in making additions solely based on the assessee's admission before the Settlement Commission without any incriminating material. The Settlement Commission application was also not adjudicated on merits and found not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the ACIT erred in making additions solely based on an admission made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, especially when the application before the Settlement Commission was not adjudicated on merits and lacked incriminating material. The previous decisions of the ITAT were also cited.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was dragging the proceedings and not making a serious attempt to persuade the matter. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during a survey u/s 133A do not automatically bind the assessee and lack evidentiary value if recorded by an unauthorized person. The presumption under section 292C of the Act does not apply when documents are seized from a third party. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on account of suppressed school fees was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during survey proceedings u/s 133A do not have evidentiary value and presumptions u/s 292C do not apply as the survey was conducted on a third party. The addition based on suppressed school fees was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the running of a Dharamshala for general public benefit, even with nominal charges, is not necessarily a commercial activity. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case further.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed the money belonged to three individuals, and affidavits were filed in support. However, the AO and CIT(A) had not adequately considered these submissions or the fact that the matter was referred to a BPC unit. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the case back to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of an admission in a Settlement Commission application, which was rejected and not adjudicated on merits, are not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material. The orders passed by the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the ACIT erred in making additions solely based on the assessee's admission before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission application was not adjudicated on merits and was found to be non-maintainable. Furthermore, the addition could not be made in the absence of any incriminating material.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee, due to her circumstances, could not adequately defend her case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to decide the case afresh, providing the assessee one last opportunity to present her case and documents.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity before the lower authorities and admitted additional evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principle of natural justice by not specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show-cause notice. The penalty was imposed without ascertaining the specific ground of violation.

The Tribunal found that the search procedures were not entirely compliant with guidelines and that the AO's addition was based on presumptions without adequate evidence. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the search action were bad in law. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was based on presumptions and assumptions and thus liable to be deleted.