ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the negligence of the previous counsel. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, stating that the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for AY 2015-16 was restored to the AO. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the present appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained ex-parte before the lower authorities and did not provide necessary evidence. However, to decide the matter on merits, the appeal was allowed and the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of cash receipts from the sale of immovable properties and had also presented the opening cash balance from the previous year's ITR. These factors, when considered, indicated that there was no negative cash balance and the addition was unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that registered documents cannot be considered as afterthought.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee received Form No. 2 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, making the disputed tax payable NIL. The assessee expressed interest in withdrawing the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 355 days finding sufficient cause, including the death of the original assessee and the appellant's unawareness of proceedings. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is interested in withdrawing the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by withdrawals from the assessee's and his son's accounts, and the revised income was bonafidely offered and should not have been treated as undisclosed income under Section 68. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,85,500/- made under Section 69A was not sustainable as the source of cash deposit was explained and supported by evidence. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 6,45,810/-, accepting the assessee's suo moto revised computation of income as bonafide.

The Tribunal ruled that since the search was conducted after July 1, 2012, the penalty should be levied under Section 271AAB as per the amended law. Citing a Jharkhand High Court decision, it held that penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) when an assessment is completed pursuant to a search under Section 153A. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on this technical ground, rendering the merits of the valuation dispute academic.

The Tribunal held that the client code modification (CCM) is a process for rectifying genuine errors and is not meant for routine use. However, if such modifications are within limits and done on the same day, it should not be considered intentional. The additions made by the AO were based on presumption and suspicion without establishing a direct link to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made additions solely based on the investigation report without independent inquiry or establishing a direct link between the assessee and the alleged manipulation. Relying on its own precedent and a Gujarat High Court decision, the Tribunal held that client code modification within permissible limits on the same day, with transactions duly accounted for and through banking channels, cannot be considered mala fide. Consequently, the impugned disallowance of loss and additions for unexplained commission expenditure were deemed uncalled for.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for deciding the issue afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation, as the order was passed beyond the prescribed period from the date of the AO's reference. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The CIT(A) and subsequently the Tribunal held that the penalty orders imposed under Section 271E were barred by limitation. The relevant date for calculating the limitation period under Section 275 was determined to be when the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional/Joint CIT (20.01.2020), not when the show-cause notice was issued by the Additional/Joint CIT (24.02.2022). As the penalty order was passed on 30.08.2022, beyond the prescribed six-month period from the reference date (expiring 31.07.2020), the penalty was time-barred. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, including the Hissaria Bros. case, emphasizing the independence of penalty proceedings related to Section 269T/269SS from assessment proceedings for limitation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were indeed barred by limitation. The relevant date for determining the limitation period is when the reference was made by the AO to the Additional Commissioner, not when the show cause notice was issued. Since the penalty order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, it cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation, as the order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, counting from the date of the AO's reference to the Additional CIT, not from the date of the show-cause notice. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as the income that survived was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) does not survive, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal as the Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 340 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. While the lower authorities confirmed the addition, the Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the assessee's request for an opportunity to explain the source of funds from their tour and travel business, decided to remand the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's delay in replying to the notice was due to a genuine and bonafide reason, as provided under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had requested for an adjournment and subsequently complied. The penalty was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption was based on a technical defect due to an inadvertent human error by the auditor. It noted that the assessee had taken steps to rectify the error and referred to previous judgments supporting such rectifications.

The Tribunal noted that the error was a technical defect due to inadvertent human error. While the initial audit report was filed in the wrong form, the assessee later obtained and filed the correct Form 10B. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the arguments regarding the delay or wrong filing of the audit report.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals involved similar issues and relied on case laws. It observed that the assessee had provided documents for transactions via banking channels and that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven. The Tribunal also highlighted that the amounts in question had already been taxed in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unsustainable and needed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that a notarized sale agreement can be considered as evidence of agreement. Considering the assessee's calculation showing a long-term capital loss and the nature of the documents presented, the Tribunal found no long-term capital gain. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(E) and did not fully present its defense. However, to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing on merits, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication on the issue of registration under Section 12AB. The assessee was directed to provide proper justification for regularization of provisional registration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide proper justification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced documents and bank statements supporting the transactions, and the creditworthiness and identity of the parties were proven. It was also observed that the amounts involved had already been taxed in the hands of Praveen Kumar Jain. The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was by a non-jurisdictional AO, rendering the assessment order and subsequent proceedings invalid. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(E), but had submitted comprehensive documents to the ITAT. To ensure a decision on merits and provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to consider the documents submitted to the ITAT and provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, with the expectation that the assessee would cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the case on merits, especially when the assessee had provided submissions. The Tribunal noted that a proper opportunity to be heard was not given.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the issue afresh considering the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and related documents from the assessee, and provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed with sufficient cause, justifying the condonation of the delay. Although the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A), the Tribunal felt that the matter should be decided on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 547 days in filing the appeal, considering the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal directed the AO to give effect to his remand report dated 16.01.2020.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent reassessment order dated 06/03/2023 was passed for the same assessment year, accepting the returned income and making no additions. This subsequent order renders the earlier assessment order dated 17/09/2021 infructuous. The Tribunal also noted a discrepancy in the addition made by the AO based on Form 26AS, with some entries matching the assessee's submission.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction solely on the technical ground of late filing of the return, when the return was filed within the extended period under Section 139(4) and there was substantial compliance, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the delay was attributed to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the extended due dates.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative argued for an opportunity to be heard and to submit pending documents, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides the necessary documents and justifications.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity by the CIT(E) and that the assessee had applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which was in the final stage of disposal. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and the previous counsel's failure to inform. The appeals were then allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.