Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, allowing the assessee to furnish details and make submissions. Proper opportunity of hearing was directed to be granted.
The Tribunal found that the confirmations from members were in the form of certificates and not affidavits, and that the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report. Considering the facts, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals deserved to be condoned and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned the delay in the interest of natural justice. The grounds of appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals deserved to be condoned and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age and the fact that she contacted multiple experts. On merit, the Tribunal held that the assessment order and the impugned order deserved to be set aside in view of the CBDT notification extending the leave encashment benefit limit to Rs. 25 lakhs with retrospective effect.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not point out specific deficiencies in the expenses. The CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to 5%, but the Tribunal felt the entire addition should have been set aside, partly allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the cash deposit was unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to substantiate his claim of cash sales as the source of the deposit.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already been granted approval under Section 80G(5) and had a registration under Section 12. However, deficiencies in providing details regarding the genuineness of activities were observed. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee remained non-compliant before the CIT(A) but considered it fit to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- for assessment year 2018-19 and Rs. 1,20,000/- for assessment year 2019-20 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission of supporting documents and the nature of the expenditure, which was deemed to be in the ordinary course of business. The ratio decidendi is that if an assessee demonstrates that an expense is genuinely incurred for business purposes with supporting evidence, it should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1). The Tribunal directed the deletion of these additions from the assessee's total income.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue department had initiated fresh proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. Considering this, the Tribunal found that the present appeal regarding the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C had become infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after being satisfied that the notices were not sent to the correct email address. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee possessed a valid registration under Section 12A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the earlier registration was not cancelled and the subsequent application was withdrawn ignorantly. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the entire survey operation under Section 133A was void and without legal force. The statement recorded during such a survey, where the officer is not authorized to administer an oath, has no evidentiary value, unlike a statement recorded under Section 132(4). The addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- based on the alleged surrender during the survey was therefore unsustainable and directed to be deleted. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 26,34,939/- based on rough jottings, described as 'deaf and dumb' documents, without any corroborative evidence or proof of the scheme's establishment, was also held to be unsustainable and directed to be deleted. The Tribunal relied on the principle that admissions are important but not conclusive and can be rebutted, and that materials collected under Section 133A are not conclusive evidence. The judgment noted that the Revenue solely relied on the assessee's statement without verification and that the fate would have been different if recorded under Section 132. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not expressly decided as the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the contract receipt of Rs. 8,29,12,088/- was indeed disclosed in the financial statement for AY 2015-16 and the income offered to tax. Therefore, the AO should have either adjusted the TDS against the tax liability for AY 2015-16 or allowed the TDS claim for the year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee possessed a valid registration under Section 12A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the earlier registration was not cancelled and the subsequent application was withdrawn ignorantly. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the assessee possessed a valid registration under Section 12A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the earlier registration was not cancelled and the subsequent application was withdrawn ignorantly. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 151 days, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal observed that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for a reasonable cause and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the cases, the appeals were remitted back for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notices were not properly served on the assessee at the address provided in Form 35, as the assessee had not opted for service via email. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside due to lack of proper service and opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee-appellant had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and presented the necessary forms. The department had no objection to this submission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 246 and 765 days, citing reasonable cause and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notices were not properly served on the assessee at the address provided in Form 35, as the assessee had not opted for service via email. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside due to lack of proper service and opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte due to the assessee not appearing. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 246 and 765 days, citing reasonable cause and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an 8% net profit rate was not justified for a milk agency business earning commission. It estimated the net profit rate at 2.25% from the sale of milk, dairy products, and pulses, considering it fair to both parties.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's application for settlement under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the submission of Form 4. The tribunal clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to apply for revival of the appeal if no settlement is ultimately reached between the parties.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and presented copies of relevant forms. Therefore, the appeal and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for a reasonable cause and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the cases, the appeals were remitted back for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, allowing the applications for condonation. The impugned orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision, affording the applicant another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) passed u/s.250 of the Act. The Tribunal then extensively quoted Circular No. 23 of 2019, Circular No. 9/2024, and Circular No. 5/2024, all pertaining to the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department and exceptions thereto, particularly concerning organized tax evasion and cases where appeals may be filed on merits. However, the judgment does not contain any operative part or a decision on the merits of the grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal has not decided the specific issues regarding the AO's reasons, the addition u/s.68 for fictitious profit, or the addition u/s.69C for commission. The judgment appears to be incomplete, as it stops after discussing the circulars and before reaching a conclusion on the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, allowing the applications for condonation. The impugned orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision, affording the applicant another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the version of incidents claimed regarding the borrowed amount and the transaction of the plot. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. Regarding the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- (Ground No. 2 and 2.1), the Tribunal noted that the Excel sheet was not in the assessee's name, and Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari had not specifically named the assessee as carrying out the transactions. Crucially, Shri Ajit Singh, in a letter dated 10.06.2022, accepted the transactions as his own in his individual capacity, stating they did not relate to family members or group companies. The AO had not controverted this letter with tangible material. The Tribunal also observed that the same income could not be taxed in more than one entity, especially when the company M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. was also reopened based on the same information. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was held to be contrary to the facts and principles of taxation, and directed to be deleted. Consequently, the additions related to interest/commission for all assessment years were also directed to be deleted as they arose from the primary addition. The Tribunal considered the appeals on merits and deemed the technical grounds academic.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69A cannot be made for amounts recorded in books of account. It also found that the trading addition was made on a hypothetical basis without concrete evidence. Therefore, the additions were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was a capital receipt and not taxable as business income. The amendment to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes subsidies as income, was not retrospective.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had granted multiple hearing dates, but the assessee failed to comply, leading to rejection based on incomplete Form 10AB and non-genuineness of activities. The provisional registrations/approvals were also cancelled due to the assessee's failure to provide proper justification for regularization. While the assessee requested one more opportunity to submit documents, the Tribunal acknowledged that the reasons for rejection, such as incomplete forms and genuineness of activities, are curable in nature. Therefore, the assessee was directed to submit all desired documents before the CIT(E) to resolve the issues. 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 outcome of the appeal under Section 80G is consequential to the decision on Section 12AB. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause and merit in the assessee's application. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause and merit in the assessee's application. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. Regarding the additions made on account of unexplained money under Section 69A and the related interest/commission, the Tribunal noted that the 'UDB' Excel sheet was not in the assessee's name, nor was there specific mention by Radha Mohan Maheshwari that the assessee carried out these transactions. Crucially, Ajit Singh, in his letter dated 10.06.2022, accepted the transactions as his own in an individual capacity, stating they did not relate to family members or group companies. This letter was not controverted by the AO with tangible material. The Tribunal observed that the same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity, especially when the company M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. was also reopened based on the same facts. The Tribunal found the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) to be contrary to the facts and principles of taxation. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- and the consequential additions of interest/commission were directed to be deleted. The technical grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and not decided.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had granted multiple hearing dates, but the assessee failed to comply, leading to rejection based on incomplete Form 10AB and non-genuineness of activities. The provisional registrations/approvals were also cancelled due to the assessee's failure to provide proper justification for regularization. While the assessee requested one more opportunity to submit documents, the Tribunal acknowledged that the reasons for rejection, such as incomplete forms and genuineness of activities, are curable in nature. Therefore, the assessee was directed to submit all desired documents before the CIT(E) to resolve the issues. 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 outcome of the appeal under Section 80G is consequential to the decision on Section 12AB. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69A was contrary to the facts on record and the principles of taxation, as the same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity. The Tribunal noted that the excel sheet was not in the assessee's name, Shri Ajit Singh had accepted the transactions in his individual capacity via a letter dated 10.06.2022, and the revenue had also reopened the case of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. based on the same information. The Tribunal found that the AO had not controverted Shri Ajit Singh's letter with tangible material and had not provided the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the additions relating to interest/commission amounting to Rs. 1,58,000/- for AY 2015-16, Rs. 4,92,100/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 4,19,100/- for AY 2017-18, Rs. 6,07,615/- for AY 2018-19, and Rs. 2,95,260/- for AY 2019-20 were also directed to be deleted. The Tribunal considered the appeals on merits and found the technical grounds to be academic. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) due to incorrect email communication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. Regarding the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/-, the Tribunal noted that the 'UDB' Excel sheet was not in the assessee's name. While Radha Mohan Maheshwari did not specifically name the assessee, Ajit Singh, through a letter dated 10.06.2022, accepted the transactions in the pen drive as his own, stating they did not relate to his family members or group companies. The Tribunal found that the AO had not controverted this letter with tangible material. Furthermore, the revenue had also reopened the case of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. based on the same information, indicating uncertainty about the true ownership. The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity and that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was contrary to the facts. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the additions relating to interest/commission for all assessment years were also directed to be deleted as they arose from the primary addition. The Tribunal deemed other technical grounds raised by the assessee as academic, given the decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was contrary to the facts on record and violated the principle that the same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity. The Tribunal noted that the Excel sheet was not in the assessee's name, and the third party, Radha Mohan Maheshwari, did not specifically name the assessee as having carried out the transactions. Crucially, Mr. Ajit Singh had accepted these transactions as his own in his individual capacity via a letter dated 10.06.2022, and this had not been controverted by the AO. Furthermore, proceedings were also initiated against M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. on the same set of facts, indicating uncertainty about the true ownership. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- and the consequential additions related to interest/commission. The technical grounds regarding the reopening were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the assessment being framed under Section 153C instead of Section 143(3)/144 was rejected. The Tribunal found that the information received from the DCIT, Central Circle-Ghaziabad, was not based on any seized or requisitioned documents belonging to the assessee, but rather on information from a third-party search. Therefore, Section 153C was not applicable. Regarding the additions under Section 69A, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to disclose the Axis Bank account in his regular books of accounts and did not establish a nexus for the credit entries to his business activities. The Tribunal agreed with the AO that these credit entries represented undisclosed and unaccounted income. Consequently, the additions made by the AO under Section 69A were upheld to the extent they were confirmed by the CIT(A). The issue regarding the inclusion of Rs.1,12,16,408/- without opportunity was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the overall direction suggests the additions under Section 69A were sustained.
Regarding the addition of Rs. 27,49,000 (Grounds 2 & 3), the Tribunal held that the seized page (Page 68 of Exhibit-8) was a 'dumb document' lacking specific details like dates or payment references, and therefore, the Revenue failed to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. The assessee had provided creditor confirmations and affidavits, and the AO had not conducted any inquiry from the named creditors. The Tribunal found no material to support the claim of parallel accounting or unaccounted purchases/sales. It was held that Section 69 cannot be invoked without unrecorded/unaccounted investment, which in turn requires accounted income. Therefore, the addition was deleted. Regarding the addition of Rs. 35,24,891 (Grounds 4, 5 & 6), the Tribunal noted that the addition was based on the assessee's statement during survey and the DVO's report. However, upon perusal of the DVO's report, it was found that no investment was determined for the relevant financial year (2016-17). Since the investment was not related to the year under consideration, the invocation of Section 69 was found to be without foundation, and the addition was deleted. Consequently, other legal grounds became academic.
The Tribunal held that while the entire addition of Rs. 6,64,99,498/- might not be sustainable as unexplained deposits, the profit element of these transactions should be taxed. The revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO mechanically acted upon the information without independent application of mind and the quantum of alleged accommodation entry was also disputed. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the amounts were already recorded as sales in the assessee's books and accepted by the AO, making the additions under Section 68 and subsequent additions under Section 69C unsustainable.