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 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.

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.

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 transactions were part of a scheme for accommodation entries and the astronomical rise in share price was unbelievable and defied business logic. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions despite documentary evidence being insufficient.

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 AR for the appellant submitted a request to dismiss the appeal and the application for condonation of delay as withdrawn.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to this request and accordingly dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as having been withdrawn.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 held that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of the claimed expenses (Rs. 20,62,500/-) was not justified and was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced all necessary bills, vouchers, ledger accounts, and labor registers before the AO. There was no specific defect pointed out by the AO in the labor register or the vouchers, nor was there any finding that the expenditure was not genuine or not related to the business. The Tribunal observed that the AO made a sweeping statement that payments were made in cash to persons whose identity could not be established, leading to the disallowance. The Tribunal acknowledged the reality that in civil construction, illiterate laborers hired from the open market often do not provide identity proof and hesitate to receive payments through banking channels. It was also noted that the AO did not resort to the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making an ad-hoc disallowance impermissible without invoking such provisions. The Tribunal concluded that additions based on surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained and that the AO made the disallowance purely on guesswork without cogent reasoning. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance could not be sustained. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the ad-hoc disallowance in its entirety.

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 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 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 Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 11(1)(a) was allowable and the tax should not have been charged at MMR. The error in the ITR was considered bonafide.

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 held that the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable and directed its deletion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a comparative chart of cash and credit sales for FY 2015-16 and 2016-17, showing total sales of Rs. 1,98,99,241/- for AY 2017-18, including cash sales of Rs. 1,23,88,953/-. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had also submitted invoices for sales made, and that some invoices on the date of demonetization showed receipts by cheque, with address and mobile numbers mentioned, indicating that the sales were not fabricated. The Tribunal further noted that the AO had not issued any letters under Section 133(6) to the buyers. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO, which held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be made in respect of cash receipts from customers against which goods were delivered. The Tribunal concluded that the sales recorded in the books of account cannot be considered unexplained, especially when the AO had already taxed the income generated from these sales. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- was directed to be deleted.

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 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 held that the assessee filed a revised return before the issuance of the notice under Section 153A, and this revised return was accepted. Therefore, there was no case for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

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 noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to being abroad and lack of education. While the lower authorities dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO.

The Tribunal is hearing two appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the CIT (Exemption) concerning registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The specific grounds of appeal are to be considered.

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 is hearing two appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the CIT (Exemption) concerning registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The specific grounds of appeal are to be considered.

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 Tribunal held that the donation was made in cash and not in kind, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey should be treated as business income. They directed the Assessing Officer to tax this income under the head 'business income'.

The Tribunal held that the business promotion expenses, specifically hotel room bookings and conference fees, did not fall under Section 194C for TDS deduction. Following a precedent, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

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 the previous remand to the Assessing Authority was contrary to the High Court's directions, which mandated the Tribunal itself to verify the distance. The High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to record its findings on the distance, potentially with the assistance of revenue authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Regarding the addition under Section 56(2)(viib)/68, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and did not concur with the findings of the lower authorities. The judgment specifically notes that the assessee's arguments regarding the retrospective application of Section 115BBE and its intent to curb black money post-demonetization were considered. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had made a disclosure in its return of income and had not attempted to conceal particulars of income, which distinguished it from the intended scope of the amendment. The Tribunal also referred to the principle of prospective application of law and cited cases like Niharika Jain and Pilani Investments and Industries Corpn. Ltd. to support the view that disclosure and concealment cannot co-exist and that amendments should generally be prospective. The CIT(A) was noted to have not addressed these submissions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, implying the deletion of the addition and consequential interest.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal found no reason to differentiate between commission paid to banks and to private parties, especially when payments were made through banking channels and TDS provisions were not applicable in the first year of audit.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made in cash and not in kind, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80G.

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 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 held that since penalty orders for a previous year with similar facts were set aside, and it was not a case of 100% bogus purchases, the penalty orders for the current years also deserved to be set aside.

The Tribunal held that the previous remand to the Assessing Authority was contrary to the High Court's directions, which mandated the Tribunal itself to verify the distance. The High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to record its findings on the distance, potentially with the assistance of revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the donation of Rs. 1,27,67,676 was made in monetary terms and not in kind, thus allowing the deduction under Section 80G. The Tribunal relied on the evidence presented, which indicated that the payment was made to suppliers for items installed at the donee institutions, aligning with the scenario where the donor funds the acquisition for the donee. The Tribunal also referred to a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, where a similar issue of donation in kind was decided in favor of the assessee, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 159/JPR/2024 was allowed. Regarding the penalty proceedings, since the quantum addition related to the Section 80G deduction was deleted, the issue of penalty became academic. Therefore, the cross-appeals concerning the penalty were treated as dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that since penalty orders for a previous year with similar facts were set aside, and it was not a case of 100% bogus purchases, the penalty orders for the current years also deserved to be set aside.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration, complete Form 10AB, and documents relating to the genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were legally untenable. It found that the materials forming the basis of reassessment were seized during search proceedings on another person, thus Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 147/148.

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 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 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 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 restored the matters back to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration, complete Form 10AB, and documents relating to the genuineness of activities.

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 held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is not mandatory for obtaining registration under the Income Tax Act. Regarding the genuineness of activities, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh adjudication as there were no findings on this issue. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. The Tribunal then adjudicated the grounds on merits, directing that pension and interest income be taxed as regular income, and allowing the challenge to the addition of rent received and cash deposits.

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 held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were legally untenable. It found that the materials forming the basis of reassessment were seized during search proceedings on another person, thus Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 147/148.