ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT's observations were made without cognizance of the assessee's submissions and in undue haste. The grounds on which the CIT denied registration were not tenable. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application and canceling the provisional registration without properly considering the assessee's submissions and the evidence provided. The assessee's activities were deemed genuine.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal filed by the assessee was not pressed. For the appeal filed by the Department, the Ld. DR relied on the assessment order. However, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on a High Court judgment which quashed notices under Section 148 and consequential orders when incriminating material related to another person was seized, suggesting Section 153C should have been invoked. The CIT(A) had found the additions unsustainable on technical grounds.

During the hearing, the Ld. AR for the appellant submitted a request to dismiss the appeal and the application for condonation of delay as withdrawn. The Tribunal acceded to this request and accordingly dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as having been withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed as not pressed. For the department's appeal, the tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on a High Court judgment regarding the applicability of Section 153C over Section 147/148 in search and seizure cases involving incriminating material of third parties.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, the creditworthiness of the companies, and the identity of the persons involved. The entire scheme was found to be a colourable device to route unaccounted money as tax-exempt LTCG, orchestrated through a modus operandi involving penny stocks and price rigging.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee revised their return before the issuance of the notice u/s 153A and the income offered was voluntarily disclosed, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the assessee was not diligent. On merits, it was held that disallowance of ESI and PF contributions for AY 2017-18 was incorrect as per Section 36(1)(va). The matter was remanded to the AO for recalculation.

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay due to lack of merit. However, during the hearing, the assessee's AR prayed for withdrawal of the appeal as the trust's registration was renewed and an incorrect form was previously filed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision to ensure the dispute is decided on merits and the assessee gets an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently failed to comply with statutory notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. However, considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, without commenting on the merits of the dispute.

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the Addl. CIT(A) but emphasized that the matter should be decided on merits with an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the ITAT restored the case to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is cooperative and does not seek frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not considered court orders and evidence related to the alleged fraud by the assessee's nephew. The matter was restored to the AO to consider the court's decision and evidence to decide on the capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was ad-hoc and lacked cogent reasoning. It noted that the assessee had provided bills, vouchers, and labor registers, and that cash payments to casual laborers were common practice. The Tribunal found no specific defects in the vouchers or evidence of non-genuine expenditure, and thus, set aside the disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for non-receipt of notices to be sufficient cause. The matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee offered the undisclosed income (unaccounted debtors) as business income in its ITR and paid tax at normal rates, and the department failed to provide any incriminating material to prove it was 'income from other sources', the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating it as such or applying Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the 10% addition made by the AO was not justified. However, considering the fall in profit and the lack of audited accounts, the addition was restricted to 1.52% of the turnover, aligning with the previous year's declared net profit rate. The appeal was partly allowed.

The provided text constitutes the introduction to the judgment and does not contain the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was erroneous because the assessee is indeed a registered 12A trust and had provided all necessary documentation. The error in ITR-7 was considered bonafide. The claim for accumulation of income under Section 11(1)(a) was found to be within the permissible limits and in accordance with the law, supported by High Court precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the incorrect email communication which led to the assessee being unaware of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders. The Tribunal then restored both matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing one more opportunity for hearing.

The provided text is the introductory part of the judgment, stating the nature of the appeals. It does not contain the tribunal's decision or holding.

The ITAT, noting that a similar penalty for AY 2007-08 had been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on identical facts, applied the principle of judicial consistency. Relying on judicial precedents stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when income is estimated, especially when purchases are not entirely bogus, the Tribunal found no merit in the penalty imposition and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80G is available only for donations made in the form of money and not in kind, as per Explanation 5 to Section 80G. Considering the facts and the Apex Court judgment in H.H. Sri Rama Verma, the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim was not allowable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The assessee had provided gift deeds and bank statements to substantiate the source of funds, meeting the criteria for identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness under Section 68. The issue of admitting additional evidence was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not mandatory for obtaining registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. It also found that the activities of the assessee were genuine and that the CIT(E) had ignored the documents submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with another opportunity to comply with the directions. The appeal was disposed of for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order. It found that the AO had applied his mind to the issues and recorded satisfaction, and that a mere difference of opinion or possibility of two views does not warrant revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock, being a part of the regular business and not having an independent identity, should be treated as business income. The provisions of Section 69/69A and 115BBE were not applicable. The issue of taxability of excess stock as business income has been affirmed by various High Courts and ITAT benches.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, such as non-service of the assessment order and the CA's negligence. The Tribunal also found that the commission expenses were genuine and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that based on the evidence and the reports from revenue authorities, the land in question was beyond 8 KMs from the municipal limits of Jaipur. Therefore, it was considered agricultural land and not subject to capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the catering expenditure was for the supply of food packets and not a contract for 'work' under Section 194C. For business promotion expenses, it was found to be primarily hotel bills and related expenses, not covered under Section 194C. The assessee was therefore not liable to deduct TDS on these expenses.

The Tribunal, after re-examining the evidence and considering reports, including that of a Court Commissioner and the State Land Revenue Authorities, held that the land in question was situated beyond 8 KM from the municipal limits of Jaipur as of January 06, 1994. Therefore, it was considered agricultural land and not a capital asset for the purpose of capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the donation was a monetary transaction, not in kind, and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80G. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions when the assessee has provided documentary evidence and the addition itself was reduced substantially. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order for a prior year with similar facts led to the deletion of penalty, and consistency should be maintained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal, noting the assessee's status as a State Govt. Public Undertaking. For one appeal, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh hearing due to a communication gap, with a direction for proper notice and participation. For the other appeals, the issues were found to be identical and allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal then adjudicated the matter on merits, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 68 and 69, and also modified the addition related to contract receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for condonation of delay was not tenable as the delay was not bonafide. The assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for his claim and appeared to be attempting to mislead the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had argued they were not given adequate opportunity to be heard and were ex-parte. The assessee also stated they had applied for registration under the RPT Act. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary documents.

The tribunal, noting the lack of adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee's ongoing efforts to obtain registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh after the assessee produces the required registration and other documents, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard. The outcome of the appeals for Section 80G was deemed consequential to the Section 12AB registration.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were legally untenable. The Tribunal, relying on a binding Rajasthan High Court judgment, determined that when incriminating material seized from a third-party search forms the basis of reassessment, the correct legal recourse is Section 153C, not Section 147/148. The Revenue's appeals for both assessment years were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 was legally untenable. Relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision, it was concluded that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, as the incriminating material was seized from another person's search. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s methodology for estimating income was correct, but the G.P. rate applied was not substantiated. The Tribunal allowed the grounds on merits, confirming the assessee's offered G.P. rate of 7.25% and disallowed further additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the applications. The cancellation of provisional registration was found to be premature and without proper grounds. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was similar to a previous case and decided to allow the grounds on merits. The original GP rate offered by the assessee at 7.25% was confirmed, and no further addition was allowed on account of commission paid for bogus purchases. The income was already calculated after applying the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act.

The tribunal held that the methodology of estimating income after rejecting books of accounts is correct, but the basis for the Gross Profit (GP) rate applied by the CIT(A) was not substantiated. The tribunal allowed the grounds on merits, confirming the assessee's offered GP rate of 7.25% and disallowing further additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal finding that the appeal was time-barred by 402 days. The application for condonation of delay was rejected as the assessee failed to establish the delay was bonafide and provided no supporting evidence for their claims.

The Tribunal found that the CIT erred in refusing registration based on the cancellation of provisional registration, considering it a procedural issue. The Court noted the haste in cancelling the provisional registration and restored the matter back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.