Loading ITAT cases…
155 orders · Page 2 of 4
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.
The Tribunal heard the application for withdrawal and noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishas Scheme, 2024. With no objection from the department, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to cooperate with the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity for the assessee to present its case and evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, considering the death of the assessee's husband and her lack of awareness. However, due to the assessee having been proceeded ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) without putting forth her defence, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing one more opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is interested in withdrawing the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Bench allowed the withdrawal and granted liberty to the assessee to apply for restoration if the settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal, noting that the online appeal was filed within time, and the physical copy was delayed due to bona fide reasons related to obtaining documents from the client. Regarding the grounds challenging the validity of notices and proceedings (Grounds 1, 1.2, 1.3, and 4), the Tribunal considered them academic in light of the decision on the merits of the case and left them undecided. On the issue of additions and disallowances, specifically the addition of Rs. 9,31,742/- to the capital gains (Grounds 2 & 3), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition because the bills/letters submitted by the assessee for Rs. 6,44,603/- pertained to current repairs and maintenance, not cost of construction or improvement. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice and the need for the assessee to be given an opportunity to represent their claim before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to consider the factual aspect of the assessee's claim after due verification and afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. Grounds 2 & 3 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's rectification order had made the assessment order infructuous and reduced the demand to Nil. Consequently, the assessee prayed to withdraw the appeal, which was then dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the nature of the surrendered income and the permissibility of setting off business losses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was indeed ex-parte before the lower authorities and thus could not present its defense. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for a decision on merits, providing one last opportunity to be heard, to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order deserve to be set aside due to the non-communication of reasons for reopening to the assessee. This violation of natural justice deprived the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to object to the reopening.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by examining the expenditure issue, which was not the original reason for selection. The AO should have converted the assessment to complete scrutiny with proper approval to examine such issues.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the addition on account of business income, unsecured loans, and sundry creditors as they were held to be double additions. The addition on account of agricultural income was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the claim. The addition on account of difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value was partly confirmed and partly restored to the AO for fresh consideration. The addition on account of unexplained capital increase was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the technical issues and the assessee's bona fide attempts to comply with the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The CIT(A)'s order of withdrawal was deemed an incorrect appreciation of facts.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal to avail benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the revenue had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without considering the genuine reasons provided by the legal heir and the surrounding facts, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision on the rule of consistency.
The Tribunal held that while the transactions were part of a scheme for bogus LTCG, the entire sale consideration could not be taxed. Only the amount claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) was to be added back.
The Tribunal held that the primary liability to pay tax lies with the employee, and the employer is merely a collection agent. The bank acted bonafide, and the revenue failed to demonstrate negligence or malafide. The employer cannot be held liable when the employee is primarily responsible for tax payment.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. The tribunal found Section 44AD applicable to the assessee's business, allowing for taxation based on a profit margin of 8% on receipts. The tribunal directed the AO to determine income based on this profit margin.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the full deduction of Rs. 12,13,200/- as leave encashment. This decision was based on the interpretation of Section 10(10AA) and the recent notification enhancing the exemption limit, as well as judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the preconditions for invoking section 69A. It found that the assessee had demonstrated agricultural land holdings and received rental income, and the AO's addition was based on presumptions and guesswork. Therefore, the additions made were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue was admissible under the exceptions provided by CBDT circulars. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a small-time investor and not a trader involved in tax evasion, and therefore confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's age, remote location, and lack of legal understanding. Since the matter was adjudicated ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A), the case was restored to the AO for fresh hearing after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The request was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of transactions, identity of creditors, and creditworthiness of lenders with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the Assessee's grounds 3 to 9, the Tribunal held that the issue related to the purchase and sale of land by a firm, and the Assessee, as a partner, acted as an authorized person. Since the appeal of the firm was not before the Tribunal, the issue concerning the firm's property was considered premature and academic. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already considered the set-off of that property and allowed the benefit to the Assessee, thus granting relief based on this specific fact. Therefore, grounds 3 to 9 of the Assessee were allowed. Regarding Assessee's grounds 1 and 2, which dealt with the validity of notice under Section 153C based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, the Tribunal noted that information was received on 18.09.2018. The Supreme Court held that the AO of the other person can take action under Section 153C for the preceding six assessment years from the date of receipt of seized material, and the date of search is irrelevant. The Tribunal found that the AO could only issue notice for AY 2018-19 down to AY 2013-14. However, since the appeal was allowed on merits, the technical ground became academic and was left open. For the Revenue's appeal, ground 1 was dismissed as having no merit because the addition was directed to be deleted while dealing with the Assessee's grounds. Grounds 2 and 3 of the Revenue were also dismissed as academic because the issue related to the firm's property, and the appeal of the firm was not before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. On the Assessee's grounds 3 to 9, the Tribunal held that the property in dispute belonged to the firm and not the individual assessee. Since the CIT(A) had already considered the set-off of that property and allowed the benefit to the assessee, these grounds were allowed, leading to the deletion of the addition. Regarding Assessee's grounds 1 and 2 concerning Section 153C notice, the Tribunal noted that information was received on 18.09.2018. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, the AO could only take action under Section 153C for the six assessment years preceding the year of information receipt (excluding the year of receipt). The Tribunal calculated the permissible assessment years for action under Section 153C. However, since the appeal was allowed on merits, the technical ground regarding the Section 153C notice became academic and was left open. For the Revenue's appeal, Ground 1 was dismissed as the Tribunal had already directed the deletion of the addition while dealing with the Assessee's grounds. Grounds 2 and 3 of the Revenue, challenging the CIT(A)'s findings on the cost of acquisition for AY 2016-17, were held to be academic because the issue related to the purchase and sale of land by the firm, and the appeal of the firm was not before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the condonation of delay applications were dismissed due to insufficient cause. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merit. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documentation, including registration under the RPT Act, 1959, and Form 10AB.
The Tribunal noted that the condonation of delay applications were dismissed due to insufficient cause. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merit. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documentation, including registration under the RPT Act, 1959, and Form 10AB.
The Tribunal noted that the condonation of delay applications were dismissed due to insufficient cause. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merit. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documentation, including registration under the RPT Act, 1959, and Form 10AB.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion, as the Assessing Officer had already examined the same transactions and details during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening under Section 147 was not valid.
The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee against the notice issued under Section 148. This failure renders the reassessment order unsustainable in law. Consequently, the reassessment order is set aside.
The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. On the issue of interest claimed as part of the capital cost, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a thorough examination, and the assessee had submitted detailed replies. The AO had adopted a possible view, and the PCIT could not invoke revision merely because they desired more enquiries or had a different opinion, citing Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. On the issue of change in the method of stock valuation, the Tribunal held that this issue was not before the AO during the reassessment proceedings initiated for the sale of immovable property. Citing CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, and CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh, the Tribunal stated that once the reason for reassessment ceased to survive, the AO's jurisdiction stopped, and they could not independently assess other income that came to their notice. Therefore, what the AO could not do in the assessment order, the PCIT could not do in revision proceedings. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's submissions and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was not a capital asset. Consequently, no capital gains tax liability could be assessed.
The Tribunal noted that the condonation of delay applications were dismissed due to insufficient cause. However, to provide substantial justice, the appeals were heard on merit. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documentation, including registration under the RPT Act, 1959, and Form 10AB.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without cogent and convincing evidence to support the assessee's claim regarding withdrawals and sales. The assessee failed to produce necessary documents like cash books and sale bills before the AO and even before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The primary burden of proving identity and genuineness of creditors was discharged by the assessee, and the revenue failed to establish otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the reopening under Section 147, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged the primary burden of establishing the identity and genuineness of the creditors. The Tribunal found that the entire basis for the addition was the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka, an accommodation entry provider, which was subsequently retracted. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s. Esspal International P. Ltd. (DB ITA no. 25/2024 dated 03/09/2024), which held that no addition can be made solely based on a retracted statement. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the questioned loans within a short duration, which, along with payments by account payee cheques, proved the genuineness of the transactions, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in Rohini Builders. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not challenged the deletion of commission and interest paid, making its appeal contradictory. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions of unsecured loans.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding additions based on alleged on-money, cash payments, and unexplained investments (Grounds 1 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Ground 1 & 2 in ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024), the Tribunal, after examining the assessee's submissions regarding cash flow statements and available cash, found that the AO had not disputed these explanations. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete these additions. This principle applies mutatis mutandis to similar grounds in ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024. Regarding additions based on seized Annexure AS (exhibits 2 and 3) where identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness were questioned (Ground 2 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Ground 3 in ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Ground 2 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 118/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 119/JP/2024, and Ground 1 in ITA No. 120/JP/2024), the Tribunal, by applying the same reasoning as for the initial investments, directed the deletion of these additions. Specifically for ITA No. 117/JP/2024, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/-, as the amounts were covered by the cash flow statement and were repayments or explained by available cash. This decision was extended to similar grounds in other appeals. Regarding additions of interest paid/received (Ground 3 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Ground 2 in ITA No. 118/JP/2024, Ground 2 in ITA No. 119/JP/2024, and Ground 2 in ITA No. 120/JP/2024), the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 62,000/- (as stated in the CIT(A)'s order, though the ground mentioned Rs. 76,000/-) as it was estimated without basis or cogent supporting material from the seized material. This also applied to similar grounds in other appeals. Regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE (Ground 3 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Ground 4 in ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Ground 4 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 118/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 119/JP/2024, and Ground 1 in ITA No. 120/JP/2024), this was held to be consequential and was not adjudicated separately as the primary additions were deleted. All six appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) were not infirm. Regarding the reopening under Section 147, the Tribunal noted that the primary burden of establishing identity and genuineness of creditors shifts to the department if the assessee provides names and addresses. The mere issuance of notices under Section 131 is insufficient to draw an adverse inference, especially when the assessee was not confronted with non-compliance. Furthermore, the basis of the addition, the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka, was retracted, and the Tribunal relied on its jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s. Esspal International P. Ltd., which held that no addition can be made solely on a retracted statement. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had repaid the questioned loans within a short duration, citing Rohini Builders, which suggests genuineness. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC was justified in quashing the reopening and reassessment proceedings. The primary reason for this decision was the procedural impropriety in the assessee challenging the reopening before the CIT(A) after acquiescing to the notice and failing to raise objections at the appropriate stage. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, which mandates that objections to the reopening notice should be raised before the AO, and if dissatisfied, the assessee should seek judicial review rather than re-agitating the matter before the appellate authority. The Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated acquiescence to the reopening and did not pursue objections at the initial stage. Therefore, the challenge before the CIT(A) was considered improper. The Tribunal also cited Surendra Kumar Jain v. CIT, emphasizing that procedural compliance validates reassessment and objections not pursued are deemed waived. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the NFAC's decision to quash the reassessment. The specific additions made by the AO were not independently adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, as the entire reassessment proceedings were set aside on technical grounds.
The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the lead case of ITA No. 115/JP/2024 and subsequent appeals. For ITA No. 117/JP/2024, the Tribunal allowed ground No. 2, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/-. The reasoning was that the amounts were covered by the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee, which was available with the AO and not disputed. This applied to repayments and payments made out of available cash. Similarly, for ground No. 3 concerning an addition of Rs. 76,000/- (AO made addition of Rs. 62,000/-), the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, holding that the AO estimated income without basis or supporting material from seized documents. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Section 115BBE was consequential and ground No. 5 was general. Consequently, the appeal in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 was allowed. For ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for ground No. 2 & 3 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 to the similar grounds raised in these appeals, allowing these appeals as well. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention the outcome for grounds related to on-money payments or short-term capital gains in the provided excerpt, but the overall disposition indicates a favorable outcome for the assessee on the discussed grounds.
The Tribunal held that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the cash found did not belong to him. While the assessee claimed the cash belonged to his son, the Tribunal found that no corroborative evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. The son was not produced before the AO, nor was any independent evidence like bank statements or other proof of legitimate acquisition of such cash by the son provided. The Tribunal noted that the AO had correctly applied Section 69A as the assessee failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash found in his possession. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was sustained. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the addition of Rs. 76,000/- (mentioned in Ground No. 3 of ITA No. 117/JP/2024, though the AO made an addition of Rs. 62,000/-), the Tribunal found that the assessee had not made substantive submissions explaining the factual or legal error in the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's written submission that the AO estimated the income as undisclosed interest income of Rs. 62,000/- without any basis or cogent supporting material from the seized material. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition. Consequently, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 was allowed. Ground No. 4 concerning Section 115BBE was consequential and Ground No. 5 was general, not requiring adjudication. Thus, the appeal in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 was allowed. For ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024, the Tribunal noted that the grounds raised were related to additions of loans and estimated interest income. The Tribunal had considered these grounds in detail while dealing with ITA No. 117/JP/2024. Since the facts were similar, the decision taken in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 regarding grounds 2 and 3 was applied mutatis mutandis to grounds 1 and 2 of these appeals. Based on this, the appeals in ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024 were allowed. All six appeals of the assessee were disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding additions related to alleged on-money payments, undisclosed income from plot sale, unexplained investments, and unproved identity/genuineness/creditworthiness of parties, the Tribunal, after considering the assessee's submissions and the cash flow statements available with the AO, found no reason to sustain these additions. Specifically, for an addition of Rs. 7,18,000/- (ITA No. 117/JP/2024, ground 2), the Tribunal directed the AO to delete it, finding that the amounts were either repayments or covered by the cash flow statement. Similarly, for an addition of Rs. 62,000/- (ITA No. 117/JP/2024, ground 3) representing estimated undisclosed interest income, the Tribunal directed its deletion, stating it was made without basis. The Tribunal held that the charge of tax under Section 115BBE was consequential and would not require adjudication if the primary additions were deleted. Consequently, the appeals in ITA Nos. 117/JP/2024, 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024 were allowed. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings for ITA Nos. 115/JP/2024 and 116/JP/2024, but the concluding remarks indicate all six appeals were disposed of based on the reasoning applied to ITA No. 117/JP/2024.
The Tribunal is hearing appeals filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s orders that quashed reassessment proceedings. The core issue revolves around the validity of the reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: For Ground No. 2 of ITA No. 117/JP/2024 (addition of Rs. 7,18,000/- based on seized documents): The Tribunal found that the entries in question were either repayments or covered by the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee, which was available with the AO and not disputed. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition, allowing the ground. For Ground No. 3 of ITA No. 117/JP/2024 (addition of Rs. 76,000/- on account of alleged interest): The Tribunal noted that the AO had made an addition of Rs. 62,000/-. The assessee contended that this was estimated without basis. The Tribunal, considering that the AO had estimated the income as undisclosed interest income without cogent supporting material from the seized material, directed the AO to delete this addition, allowing the ground. For Ground No. 4 of ITA No. 117/JP/2024 (applicability of Section 115BBE) and Ground No. 5 (general ground): The Tribunal held that the charge of tax under Section 115BBE was consequential and the general ground did not require adjudication. The appeal in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 was allowed. For ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024: The Tribunal noted that the grounds raised in these appeals were related to additions of loans and estimated interest income. As the Tribunal had already considered similar grounds in detail while dealing with ITA No. 117/JP/2024 (specifically grounds 2 and 3), the decision made in those grounds was applied mutatis mutandis to these appeals. Consequently, these appeals were also allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to delete the additions and allow the appeals.