Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that registration under the RPT Act, 1959 is not mandatory for obtaining registration under the Income Tax Act. It also found that the assessee's activities were genuine based on the evidence and the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the Ananda Social & Educational Trust case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of written arguments and absence at hearings, stating the assessee was not pursuing the case on merits. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's grievance was that the CIT(A) had not taken into consideration the remand report along with the valuation report. The Tribunal felt that this report might not have been forwarded to the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Therefore, the Bench decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the paper books and provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits, and the assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments. The decision to restore the matter was stated to have no reflection on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 as the assessee had reflected both the income and expenses in her return. The AO should have considered the expenses and recalculated the total income.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's claim for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, treating the applications as withdrawn due to the assessee's inability to furnish required documents. The provisional registrations were also cancelled. The assessee's primary plea was that they were not afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and requested another opportunity to present their case. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh in accordance with the law once the assessee produces the registration certificate under the RPT Act, 1959, and other required documents, including complete Form 10AB and documents relating to the genuineness of activities. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was for statistical purposes and did not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes. Regarding the delay, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order and the subsequent prompt filing of the appeal upon learning of it. While not explicitly condoning the delay, the decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes implies that the delay was not a bar to adjudication. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also took into account the pendency of SLP (C) No. 16734/2023 before the Supreme Court, where recovery from employees was stayed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the appellant and for the appellant to submit its submissions. The Tribunal explicitly mentioned that its decision was guided by the Supreme Court's stay on recovery from employees.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, treating them as withdrawn based on the assessee's request due to an inability to furnish requisite documents and personal exigencies. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's plea that it was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard and that the orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice. Considering the assessee's submission that it had obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and its request for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the CIT(E). The direction was for the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh in accordance with the law once the assessee produces the registration under the RPT Act, 1959, and other required documents, including complete Form 10AB and documents relating to the genuineness of activities. The Tribunal clarified that this decision to restore the matter does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the 31-day delay, finding sufficient cause. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication of the Section 80G application, instructing the assessee to submit all necessary documents and cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal clarifying that the remand does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, stating the appeal was e-filed on July 16, 2024, and the challan was submitted on July 9, 2024, with physical filing on October 3, 2024. The Tribunal, taking a lenient view and considering the principles in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, condoned the 6-day delay in filing. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) noted a lack of documentary evidence, the assessee claimed to have provided a cash book and bank statement. The Tribunal found that there was a minor gap between withdrawal and redeposit, and the CIT(A)'s observation of a complete lack of documentary evidence was not fully agreed with, especially as a cash flow statement was mentioned. The Tribunal felt that the CIT(A) should have thoroughly examined the assessee's contention regarding the availability of funds. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the issue of unexplained cash deposits. Consequently, grounds 4 and 5 regarding Section 115BBE and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D were rendered academic and did not require adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of a personal hearing by the CIT(A) despite a request. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, which was accepted by the Department, and the tax was deposited. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the application under Section 12AB was rejected on three grounds: discrepancy in the dissolution clause, objects for a particular community, and non-genuineness of activities. Regarding the dissolution clause, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had modified the clause but failed to demonstrate this before the CIT(E). It considered this curable and that the assessee should be given a chance to rectify the observation. For the other two grounds (objects for a particular community and non-genuineness of activities), the Tribunal found that the trust had been operating as a charitable trust since 1963 and benefiting from Sections 11 and 12. It concluded that these observations arose from the assessee's inability to supply complete details. The Tribunal found these defects to be curable and decided to give the assessee one more chance to present its case before the CIT(E). Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee. As a consequential outcome, the appeal relating to Section 80G was also restored to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12AA of the Act was evident from various documents, including the 80G approval and the AO's own order for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal also considered the TDS penalty as a fee, not a penalty, and thus eligible for application of income.
The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be remanded to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the transactions related to commission payments and discount expenses by examining ledger accounts and summoning relevant parties, providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, which was accepted by the Department, and the tax was deposited. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for rejection were curable and that the assessee had not been given a full opportunity to rectify the issues. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the income offered for tax was business income and not unexplained investment or money under Section 69/69A. Therefore, taxing it under Section 115BBE was not justified. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's affidavit and the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. Regarding Ground 1, the Tribunal held that while there was a violation of natural justice due to improper notice service, it did not impinge upon the validity of the CIT(A)'s order, as the appeal was adjudicated on merits and not dismissed for non-prosecution. The case laws cited by the assessee pertained to assumption of jurisdiction, which was not the issue here. Thus, this ground did not succeed. Concerning Ground 2, the Tribunal found a significant inconsistency in the penalty proceedings. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for 'concealing income' and 'filing inaccurate particulars', the SCN mentioned 'furnishing inaccurate particulars', but the final penalty order held the assessee liable for 'concealment of particulars of income'. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not clearly indicate which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was attracted, and there was internal inconsistency. Citing consistent views of Tribunals and High Courts, the ITAT held that the penalty levied was not sustainable due to this lack of clarity and inconsistency. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete it. As the appeal was allowed on a legal ground, adjudication of other grounds on merits (Grounds 3, 4, and 5) became academic and were not addressed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not legally tenable as the addition made was not on account of the reasons for reopening (cash deposits). The disallowance of Section 80P deduction was not sustainable in law in the context of the reopening proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act allows deduction of expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of income was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a deceased person without proper legal representation or opportunity to be heard is void ab initio. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal did not concur with the CIT(A)'s order of setting aside and remanding the case, and instead allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). Regarding the first issue, concerning the deletion of Rs. 3,69,70,000/- and Rs. 40,00,000/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a fund flow statement demonstrating that the amounts represented advances for land deals which were returned. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not established any contrary evidence to disprove the assessee's explanation that these were temporary advances for negotiations that did not materialize. For the second issue, the deletion of the trading addition of Rs. 9,43,030/-, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the excess stock found during the survey was duly recorded in the books of account and taxes were paid on the income determined after its inclusion. The Tribunal found no specific discrepancy pointed out by the AO in the books of account. For the third issue, the deletion of Rs. 23,88,331/- on account of disallowance of interest expenses, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the balance sheet indicated business debtors and that the AO had failed to establish that the borrowed funds were used for investments or interest-free loans to relatives. The Tribunal noted that the parties identified by the AO as being in real estate were, in fact, business debtors who had purchased steel from the assessee. No contrary material was presented by the Revenue. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. Considering the ex-parte nature of the lower proceedings and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present their case, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the difference in stock valuation between cost and MRP, without any quantitative difference or incriminating documents. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal found no basis for the addition.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was genuine compensation as per the explanation to Section 10(10B). Following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre &Ors., the Tribunal accepted the assessee's grievance.
The Tribunal held that Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act allows deduction of expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of income was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal for the different assessment years were similar. The Tribunal decided the appeals on merits, applying findings from one assessment year to others where applicable.
The Tribunal decided the appeals on merits, rendering the challenge to the assessment orders under Section 144/153A as academic. Regarding the addition of Rs.94,77,000/- (AY 2015-16) and Rs.54,90,000/- (AY 2016-17) under Section 68 for cash deposits, the Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that some part of these additions were disputed and addressed. The addition of Rs.2,00,000/- for agricultural income was confirmed for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17, and also for AY 2017-18, as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence. The Tribunal addressed additions under Section 69C for interest on cash loans and Section 69 for unexplained investment in land, and Section 69A for undisclosed brokerage/profit, with specific findings not fully elaborated but leading to a partly allowed outcome. The disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) was also addressed. The addition for marriage expenses was confirmed for AY 2015-16. The applicability of Section 115BBE was considered for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18, with the judgment implying it was not applied in a manner that led to dismissal. The overall outcome for all three appeals was that they were partly allowed. The ratio decidendi is that the assessee must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of income or expenditure, and failure to do so can lead to additions by the AO and confirmation by appellate authorities.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a non-existent company, which had already merged with another entity, is a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation curable under Section 292B. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and other High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio. The fact that the amalgamation was known to the department and brought to the AO's notice further strengthened this position. Consequently, the impugned notices and the assessment order passed in furtherance thereof were quashed and set aside. Since the primary legal ground regarding the invalidity of the assessment was allowed, the grounds relating to the merits of the disallowance of depreciation and charging of interest were rendered academic and were not adjudicated. The Tribunal ordered accordingly, allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal and facts for AY 2016-17 (ITA No. 1464/JP/2024) and AY 2017-18 (ITA No. 1465/JP/2024) were similar to those for AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 1463/JP/2024). The Tribunal decided that the findings in ITA No. 1463/JP/2024, specifically concerning grounds 2 to 6 and 8, would apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for grounds 2 to 3 and 2 to 3 respectively. Ground 1, challenging the order on technical grounds, was rendered academic as the appeals were decided on merits. Ground 9 (general) and Ground 4 (consequential) in ITA 1464/JP/2024 and Ground 5 (general) and Ground 4 (consequential) in ITA 1465/JP/2024 did not require specific findings. The judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, implying that some additions were upheld while others were likely deleted or modified, though the specific findings on each ground are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The operative direction for all three appeals was that they stand partly allowed.
The tribunal condoned the 33-day delay in filing the appeals, finding that the reasons provided constituted a 'sufficient cause' and the issues were curable. The tribunal decided to restore both matters concerning Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to present all required documents and details to prove genuineness.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(E) did not effectively adjudicate the applicability of Section 2(15) and did not deal with judicial pronouncements. It also acknowledged new evidence from the assessee regarding changes to its objects. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded both applications (for Section 12AB registration and Section 80G(5)(iii) approval) back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and considering all relevant information and amendments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matters back to the CIT(E) to grant the applicant an opportunity to provide the necessary documents and information regarding their registration and activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matters back to the CIT(E) to grant the applicant an opportunity to provide the necessary documents and information regarding their registration and activities.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(E) did not effectively adjudicate the applicability of Section 2(15) and did not deal with judicial pronouncements. It also acknowledged new evidence from the assessee regarding changes to its objects. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded both applications (for Section 12AB registration and Section 80G(5)(iii) approval) back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and considering all relevant information and amendments.
For A.Y. 2011-12 (ITA No. 114/JPR/2025), the Tribunal found that the authorities failed to establish the authenticity of the documents (Annexure A-24) and that additions based on uncorroborated loose papers are unsustainable, especially when the profit rate has already been estimated. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the evidentiary value of such documents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the deletion of the addition. For A.Y. 2015-16 (ITA No. 394/JPR/2025), the Tribunal confirmed the ad-hoc disallowances made by the lower authorities, observing the assessee's significantly low net profit ratio.
The tribunal condoned the 33-day delay in filing the appeals, finding that the reasons provided constituted a 'sufficient cause' and the issues were curable. The tribunal decided to restore both matters concerning Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to present all required documents and details to prove genuineness.
The Tribunal, while noting that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities, felt that the matter should be decided on merits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. For the Section 12AB application, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to be heard. For the Section 80G(5)(iii) application, the rejection order was set aside and the application was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now obtained the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. It felt that the matter needed re-examination by the CIT(E) and restored the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. For the Section 12AB application, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to be heard. For the Section 80G(5)(iii) application, the rejection order was set aside and the application was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below made additions based on conjectures and surmises without proper evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the orders of the authorities below were set aside with a direction to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the denial of an opportunity to be heard to the assessee regarding the additional evidence and the defects pointed out by the CIT(A) constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order upholding the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee regarding the additional evidence and the defects pointed out. This was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty order deserved to be set aside due to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard concerning the additional evidence submitted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not calling the assessee or deponents for remand proceedings and not issuing any summons to verify the additional evidence. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on a High Court precedent and noted that the Department itself had subsequently issued fresh notices, implying acceptance of the legal infirmity of the earlier notices.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on a High Court precedent and noted that the Department itself had subsequently issued fresh notices, implying acceptance of the legal infirmity of the earlier notices.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not calling upon the assessee or summoning deponents for verification of additional evidence. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and deponents regarding the additional evidence constituted a gross violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued on 29.03.2018, was invalid as it was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and no 'reasons to believe' were recorded by the jurisdictional officer. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were set aside.