ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2025

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 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 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 Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a favorable outcome before the lower authorities and prayed for another opportunity. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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 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 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.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 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 assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for the delay and that the matter should be decided on merits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the case to the AO.

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 since the amounts offered during the survey were incorporated into the books of accounts and the assessees were in the medical profession with no other identified source of income, the income should be treated as business income and not subject to the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed unjustified.

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 since the amounts offered during the survey were incorporated into the books of accounts and the assessees were in the medical profession with no other disclosed source of income, the income should be treated as business income and not subject to the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE.

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 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 had provided a clear explanation regarding the purchase of stock from M/s. Shree Ram Traders and had supported the transaction with documentary evidence, including RTGS payment. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not brought any material on record to controvert the assessee's claim or to establish that the investment in stock was unexplained. The CIT(A) had also failed to provide any specific reasons for upholding the AO's addition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The appeal was allowed, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the sales and cash receipts were on the same date and the books of accounts were not rejected, thus the addition under Section 69A was not justified.

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 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 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 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 held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 was not sustainable due to various infirmities. Specifically, on the issue of sanction under Section 151, the Tribunal found that the approval given by the superior authorities (Joint Commissioner and Pr. CIT) was mechanical and lacked application of mind. It was observed that a consolidated approval was given for multiple assessees, and the approval document was a photocopy, not signed by the competent authority in some instances. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Sh. Satya Naraya Bairwa v/s ITO and similar subsequent decisions, which held that consolidated approvals for numerous independent assessees with different reasons are improper and indicate a slipshod manner of granting sanction. The Tribunal noted that the AO initiated proceedings based on borrowed information without verification, and the PCIT gave approval without independent satisfaction. Consequently, the issuance of notice under Section 148 and all consequent proceedings and the assessment order were quashed as not being in accordance with law. Since the assessee succeeded on the legal grounds, the grounds challenging the additions on merit were not adjudicated as academic. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the construction of a new residential house can commence before the sale of the original capital asset, as Section 54F deals with the completion of construction, not its commencement. The documents submitted by the assessee were not found deficient by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the onus is not on the assessee to verify the genuineness of the operations of the donee organization, as the approval process under Section 35 involves checks by prescribed authorities and the CBDT. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if they fulfill the conditions related to the donation.

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 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 held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of income offered in a Settlement Commission application if the application was rejected and no incriminating material was found during search proceedings.

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 held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of income offered in a Settlement Commission application if the application was rejected and no incriminating material was found during search proceedings.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of income offered in a Settlement Commission application if the application was rejected and no incriminating material was found during search proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The ITAT noted that the assessee's application was rejected on the grounds of commercial activities and non-maintenance of separate books of account. The assessee contended that its activities are not commercial and do not fall under Section 2(15). The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee has been running a Dharamshala since 1962 for the benefit of the general public. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the Tribunal observed that even if margins are not substantially high, the benefit of a trust should not be denied. The ITAT felt that the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(E) and contest the issues raised. The Tribunal explicitly stated that its decision to restore the matter does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E). No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of income offered in a Settlement Commission application if the application was rejected and no incriminating material was found during search proceedings.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of income offered in a Settlement Commission application if the application was rejected and no incriminating material was found during search proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and a liberal approach as per Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had treated FDR renewal as income and cash deposits needed verification, and the assessee had not appeared before the AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA No. 1228/JP/2024) and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No. 1191/JP/2024). The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT(A) had examined the facts and evidence and found that the expenditure was explained and related to the assessee's business. The Tribunal found no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A). The ratio of the decision is that if an expenditure is found to be explained and related to business by the first appellate authority, the revenue must demonstrate a stronger case to overturn such a finding. The operative direction was to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer, thereby granting relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were illegal and without jurisdiction, as they should have been initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

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 the presumption under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the assessee as the documents were not found from its premises. Furthermore, statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A lack evidentiary value. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

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 presumption under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the assessee as the documents were not found from its premises. Furthermore, statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A lack evidentiary value. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

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 the presumption under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the assessee as the documents were not found from its premises. Furthermore, statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A lack evidentiary value. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds that the assessee had not provided details of beneficiaries of religious education for the financial year 2023-24. The assessee's authorized representative argued that they were deprived of an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E). The Tribunal observed that show cause notices were issued, and the assessee replied in part. Considering that the defects were curable, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be allowed one more opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The Tribunal decided not to go into the merits of the case but emphasized that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to produce all relevant papers. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principles of equity and natural justice. The Tribunal also agreed to consider the supporting details for deductions claimed by the assessee.

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 decided to remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for a fresh decision. Regarding the first ground of rejection (non-registration under RPT Act), the Tribunal noted that while the trust was not registered at the time of the impugned order, it has since obtained registration. The Tribunal directed that this subsequent registration certificate should be produced before the CIT(E) for perusal and necessary action. For the purposes of the present appeal, this ground of rejection was considered not to survive. Concerning the second ground (non-genuineness of activities), the Tribunal observed that the applicant did not submit complete information and discrepancies were noted. However, both the assessee and the Revenue agreed to a remand. The Tribunal deemed it fit to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish all requisite documents and information before the CIT(E) for a proper adjudication of the issues. The application under Section 12AB was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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 held that since the assessee had already disclosed and paid tax on a larger amount (Rs. 2,01,00,000/-) as business income, the subsequent expenditure from this disclosed income could not be considered unexplained expenditure. Therefore, the charge of tax under Section 115BBE was not sustainable.

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.