Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT (Exemption) and remitted the matters back for fresh decision. Regarding the rejection of permanent registration under Section 12AB, the Tribunal noted that while the CIT (Exemption) doubted payments related to interested parties and genuineness of activities, the assessee argued it was not given a proper opportunity to explain foreign travel bills. The Tribunal found that the trustees are doctors offering services to underprivileged children at nominal fees, and travel expenses were for awareness programs and collaborations. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee provided evidence for charitable activities. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT (Exemption) to decide afresh after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The cancellation of provisional registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G was quashed, and the provisional registration was deemed to be in force until its validity. The issue regarding 80G approval was also to be decided afresh along with the 12AB registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's first ground of appeal regarding the validity of the order u/s 147/144 was not pressed. On the second issue, the Tribunal found that the AO issued only two notices (u/s 142(1) and SCN for 144) which were not adequate opportunities. The assessee's blindness and dependence on his son, who was often away, constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance, bringing the case under Rule 46A(1)(c). The CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the additional evidence without proper reasons and without considering the principles of natural justice and substantial justice. The Tribunal, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, held that the additional evidence, being crucial and vital, ought to have been admitted. Given that the assessee had since expired, the Tribunal decided to accept the additional evidence at this stage to provide justice. On the third issue, based on the Tehsildar's certificates and the concession from the Ld. DR that the land fell outside municipal limits, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned land was agricultural land and not a capital asset. Therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable on its transfer. The orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside, and the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the trustees are doctors providing services to underprivileged children at nominal fees, with many free services, indicating activities are not commercial or profit-driven. Travel expenses were for attending medical awareness programs and exploring collaborations, incurred in furtherance of trust objectives. While some invoices reflected individual trustee names, payments were made by the trust. The Tribunal noted that the query regarding foreign travel bills was not raised by the CIT(E) during proceedings, and the assessee claimed it was not granted a proper opportunity to explain. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(E) doubted the genuineness of activities due to issues like cash receipts and lack of details, but the assessee contended that necessary details and evidence were furnished. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the issues relating to permanent registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G afresh after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in light of the Tribunal's observations. The cancellation of provisional registration under Section 12AB and 80G was also quashed, and the provisional registration was deemed to remain in force until its validity. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly applied their minds to the facts of the case. It observed that Rs. 31,500/- was deposited on 08.11.2016, prior to the demonetization announcement. Furthermore, against the cash deposits, payments were made for booking railway tickets or amounts were transferred to Suvidha Info Services Pvt. Ltd., from whom the assessee earned commission income as reflected in the return. The Tribunal found that these facts were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, with a directive for cooperation and no frivolous adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the dispute, leaving it to the AO to adjudicate independently.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption under Section 10AA was incorrect. It noted that numerous judicial pronouncements hold that the requirement of filing a certificate like Form 56F along with the return is directory, not mandatory, and can be filed at any time before the completion of assessment, provided there is a sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal cited decisions from the Gujarat High Court (CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd.), Supreme Court (CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd.), and Rajasthan High Court (CIT vs. Godha Chemicals Pvt, Ltd.) to support this view. The CIT(A) was found to have failed to discuss these case laws. For the second issue, the Tribunal held that the interest paid on late deposit of TDS is compensatory in nature and not penal. It distinguished the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, which dealt with interest on delayed income tax payment. The Tribunal relied on the principles from the Supreme Court decision in Lachmandas Mathura Das vs. CIT, holding that interest on delayed payment of TDS is deductible under Section 37(1) as it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The appellate order confirming the disallowance of interest on TDS was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of loans amounting to Rs. 480 lacs (secured loans) and Rs. 268.65 lacs (unsecured loans) was for the acquisition of capital assets and thus not taxable under Section 41(1). The Tribunal found sufficient evidence in the balance sheets and director's reports to establish the nexus between the loans and capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification under Section 154 was not permissible as it amounted to a review of his own order and was not a 'mistake apparent from record'. The CIT(A) also erred in confirming this order.
The Tribunal held that when an assessment order is set aside and the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer, interest under Section 220(2) can only be charged after 35 days from the date of service of the demand notice pursuant to the fresh assessment order, not from the original assessment date.
The Tribunal held that registration under the RPT Act is not a prerequisite for Section 12AB or 80G registration, and the profitability ground was invalid given permissible accumulation limits. It also noted that the appellant already possessed approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) for the relevant period. Consequently, the CIT(E)'s rejection was deemed unjustified, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant the Section 80G(5)(iii) approval.
The Tribunal held that since the cash was found at the business premises and the assessee consistently stated it was business income, it should not be taxed at a special rate merely because it was initially offered under a different head.
The Tribunal held that the entire commission receipt could not be taxed as income and applied a reasonable net profit rate. Regarding the penalty, it was reduced, considering the non-compliance of notices as a single default due to circumstances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was decided ex-parte in both lower proceedings, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to decide the case on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered more income than the disputed amount of Rs. 62,185/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered income under various heads aggregating to Rs. 5,64,931/-, which was more than the disputed amount.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition as the assessee had provided sales bills and maintained regular books of accounts, which were not disputed. The AO failed to reject the books of accounts or conduct a spot survey to verify the sales.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was issued only two notices by the CIT and felt that in the interest of justice, one more chance should be given to the assessee to present their case. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT for fresh adjudication, providing adequate opportunity of being heard and allowing the assessee to submit required documents.
The ITAT held that the issue regarding interest on Income Tax refund should be remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication with sufficient information. The ground related to the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee's counsel.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was issued only two notices by the CIT and felt that in the interest of justice, one more chance should be given to the assessee to present their case. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT for fresh adjudication, providing adequate opportunity of being heard and allowing the assessee to submit required documents.
The tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 148 was void ab initio because the AO failed to provide proper reasons, specify the entities involved, and dispose of the assessee's objections before completing the assessment, thus violating principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Apex Court.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) should not have rejected the evidence of the contractor, Shri Lal Chand, especially since he appeared before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings and reiterated his deposition on oath regarding the renovation/construction work. The Tribunal found that the contractor's affidavit, supported by bills for material and labour expenses for the periods 1995-96 and 1997-98, corroborated the assessee's claim. Regarding the Rs. 1,78,000/- withdrawal from the assessee's bank account for the year 1997-98, the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) observed a total withdrawal of Rs. 1,48,000/- as of 21.11.1997, the Department had no material to suggest the assessee incurred expenses elsewhere. The Tribunal considered the assessee's claim for Rs. 1,78,000/- as probablized. For the Rs. 70,000/- expenditure in 2001-02, the contractor's affidavit remained unchallenged, as did the affidavit of the assessee's son, Simant Chaturvedi, stating his contribution from salary. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee established her claim for expenditure on renovation/construction, entitling her to a further deduction of Rs. 3,68,000/- (including the amount allowed by the CIT(A)). The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's PAN was based in Pune, Maharashtra, and the assessee's address in the return of income also indicated Pune. Despite this, the appeal was filed before the Jaipur Benches, which lacked territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,01,38,155/- was partly justified. It observed that the difference in capital was primarily due to the introduction of assets acquired between 1995 and 2016, which were previously not reflected in the balance sheets. The Tribunal noted that while the AO and CIT(A) questioned the genuineness, they did not reopen the assessment years in which these assets were acquired. The Tribunal found that all acquisitions, except for a gift of Rs. 5,50,650/- from the mother, pertained to earlier periods and could not be added back in the current year under consideration, adhering to the principle that each year is separate. The assessee had discharged his onus for these prior acquisitions. However, the gift from the mother of Rs. 5,50,650/- was not substantiated before any authority. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,50,650/- was sustained under Section 68, and the AO was directed to delete the balance amount. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to adhere to the required exercise in this matter, for which the assessee could not be held responsible.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not in consonance with the CBDT Instructions regarding CASS selection. The AO had initiated limited scrutiny based on a specific parameter ('Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration reported'). However, the AO expanded the scope of inquiry to include the purchase of land and registration charges without obtaining prior approval from the Principal CIT/DIT to convert the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny, as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. 01/2015. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and proceedings sheet did not indicate any such proposal or approval. Therefore, the AO's action of expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the specified limited scrutiny was illegal and void, being beyond his jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 143(3) was set aside. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to consolidate both appeals for common adjudication. Regarding the first ground in ITA No. 1307/JP/2024, concerning the validity of the reassessment order, the Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to file returns and respond to notices. The AO completed the assessment under Section 144 based on available NMS data. The Tribunal found that the AO had obtained necessary approvals and issued notices as per the Act. The purchase of a motor vehicle for Rs. 35,46,667/- and commission receipts of Rs. 31,17,181/- were noted. The AO investigated the car purchase with Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., which provided invoices and ledger accounts. The AO found that Rs. 16,56,453/- was paid from the assessee's own sources for the car, and no explanation was provided for this investment. Consequently, this amount was treated as unexplained investment under Section 69. The commission receipt was also treated as undisclosed income due to non-filing of return and non-response to notices. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was confirmed. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 5,46,700 sustained by the CIT(A) out of total cash deposits of Rs. 17,36,700. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already considered an explained source of cash for Rs. 11,90,000. The assessee argued that withdrawals of Rs. 3,10,000 on 05.04.2016 and Rs. 1,28,700 on 07.04.2016, totaling Rs. 4,38,700, were not fully considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) considered withdrawals of Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 1,90,000 dated 30.03.2016 and 31.03.2016 respectively, the subsequent withdrawals on 05.04.2016 and 07.04.2016 were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal found that these withdrawals, when considered along with the income already declared by the assessee (Rs. 2,12,180 accepted by the AO), sufficiently explained the remaining balance. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 5,46,700 and directed its deletion. Grounds 1 and 2 raised by the assessee were allowed.
The ITAT held that the issue regarding interest on Income Tax refund should be remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication with sufficient information. The ground related to the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee's counsel.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's action of changing the taxation option under Section 115BAA was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) and constituted a mistake apparent from the record, rectifiable under Section 154. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that filing a return under Section 139(4) (belated return) is considered within the time allowed under Section 139. Relying on CBDT circulars and judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied solely on the basis of filing a belated return.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not effectively dealt with the issues raised by the assessee and had dismissed the appeal with brief reasons. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present documents and arguments, and the CIT(E) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of initiating reassessment proceedings, the AO only needs a 'reason to believe' and not conclusive proof. However, concerning the addition for cash deposits, the Tribunal found the cash flow statement to be reliable, showing no negative balance, and thus deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present documents and arguments, and the CIT(E) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal was hearing the appeals filed by the assessee. The first ground of appeal mentioned is related to an ex-parte assessment that allegedly violated natural justice and relied on filed returns.
The tribunal was hearing the appeals filed by the assessee. The first ground of appeal mentioned is related to an ex-parte assessment that allegedly violated natural justice and relied on filed returns.
The Tribunal held that the delay in digital verification of Form 10DA was a procedural lapse and did not warrant disallowance of the deduction, especially since the form was uploaded in time and available before processing.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on unsigned, unexecuted draft agreements without corroborative evidence of cash payment. The soft copies were deemed unreliable as they differed from registered sale deeds in terms of dates, consideration, and payment details.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) without proper procedure and specific defects. The Tribunal also noted that a statement recorded during a survey is not on oath and can be retracted, and without corroborative evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) without proper procedure and specific defects. The Tribunal also noted that a statement recorded during a survey is not on oath and can be retracted, and without corroborative evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for additions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be decided on merits to ensure no rights are prejudiced without a hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with the assessee directed to produce all relevant records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's submission regarding portal dysfunction and the eventual receipt of the order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on unsigned, unexecuted draft agreements without corroborative evidence of cash payment. The soft copies were deemed unreliable as they differed from registered sale deeds in terms of dates, consideration, and payment details.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148A read with Section 148 was bad in law on multiple grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal found that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, citing the judgments in Seema Gupta and Kelvinator of India Ltd. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a specific request for a personal hearing on June 29, 2022, which was not provided before passing the order under Section 148A(d), violating the principles laid down in Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia. Thirdly, the objections raised by the assessee on merits and law were not disposed of by the AO, violating the Supreme Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and Vivek Saran Agarwal. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 read with Section 148A was quashed. As the reopening was quashed, the addition of Rs. 4,96,87,796/- (Ground No. 2) was rendered consequential and academic and thus did not survive for adjudication. Similarly, the charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground No. 3) was directed to be recalculated after giving appeal effect, as it is mandatory. The initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed premature. Ground No. 4, regarding the CIT(A) overlooking the Rajeev Bansal judgment and the time-barred issue, was considered as merged with the challenge to the reopening. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had admitted that cash was withdrawn from the bank before being deposited. Crucially, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had pointed out that the cash withdrawn was utilized for any other purpose. In the absence of such a finding, the Tribunal inferred that the cash withdrawn was available with the assessee for deposit. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited could not be treated as unexplained or undisclosed income. The Tribunal set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition made. The ratio decidendi is that if cash is withdrawn from a bank and subsequently deposited back, and there is no evidence of its utilization for any other purpose, the deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income, even if there is a time gap, provided the assessee claims it is out of prior withdrawals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the primary issue of the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,220/-, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had made a categorical finding that the assessee did not receive this amount during the year under consideration. This finding by the CIT(Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue in its appeal. Therefore, since the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings was not received by the assessee, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and upheld it. The Tribunal also addressed the reassessment proceedings under section 147, stating that the AO acted mechanically on information received from the DDIT (Inv.) without applying his independent mind, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.). The reassessment was held to be invalid and quashed. Consequently, no findings were given on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The assessee was directed to present submissions and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) claimed to have complied with the CIT(Exemption)'s instructions and supplied all demanded documents, but these were not properly examined. The CIT(Exemption) had issued only two notices. The Tribunal adopted a lenient view, acknowledging that the assessee should have an adequate opportunity to be heard and to submit documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is required to submit the demanded documents regarding registration under Section 12AB. Consequently, the appeal concerning Section 80G, being consequential, was also restored to the CIT(Exemption). No issue was expressly left undecided, as both matters were remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) claimed to have complied with the CIT(Exemption)'s instructions and supplied all demanded documents, but these were not properly examined. The CIT(Exemption) had issued only two notices. The Tribunal adopted a lenient view, acknowledging that the assessee should have an adequate opportunity to be heard and to submit documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is required to submit the demanded documents regarding registration under Section 12AB. Consequently, the appeal concerning Section 80G, being consequential, was also restored to the CIT(Exemption). No issue was expressly left undecided, as both matters were remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for "furnishing inaccurate particulars" as recorded in the assessment order, which provided clarity to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the mistake in the penalty notice, where both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) were not struck off, did not cause prejudice to the assessee as the assessment order clearly specified the ground for penalty. This issue was considered settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Regarding the additions sustained, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the claim of expenditure for boundary wall construction before the transfer of land. Evidence like handwritten letters and payments below Rs. 20,000/- without banking channels were not considered sufficient proof. The Tribunal confirmed the additions of Rs. 2,03,925/- and Rs. 3,75,917/- for the construction of boundary walls on two plots as unexplained income. Consequently, the penalty levied on these sustained additions was upheld. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in treating the returns as invalid solely on the ground that they were not filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal noted that the third proviso to Section 148, which states that returns furnished beyond the period allowed shall not be deemed to be a return under Section 139, was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and was not in force during the relevant assessment years. Similarly, the time period of 3 months for furnishing a return under Section 148 was prescribed only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. Therefore, as per the law in force at the relevant time, the returns filed under Section 148 should have been treated as returns furnished under Section 139, making them valid. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention that it was not required to furnish a return under Section 139(1) or 139(4C) as the department had not brought to its notice that the total income (without giving effect to Section 10) exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 10 and the charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C were also held to be erroneous. The Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned orders.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB on the ground of non-genuineness of activities, citing issues like book entries for transactions, potential violation of Section 13(1)(c), siphoning of funds by trustees, and lack of verifiable details for purchases, distributions, bank statements, donation receipts, and activities. For Section 80G, the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily because registration under Section 12AB is a prerequisite, and the genuineness of activities remained unproven. The Tribunal, adopting a lenient view, acknowledged the assessee's plea for an additional opportunity to present documents and arguments before the CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and for the assessee to submit the demanded documents. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be independently adjudicated by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to decide the case on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.