ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Toll and Trip expenses and Repairs and Maintenance expenses was not justified. The AO's reliance on director's statements without corroborative evidence was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal noted that incriminating material was unearthed during the search and seizure action concerning Repairs & Maintenance expenses and Toll & Trip Expenses. Bogus bills and vouchers were found, and a significant portion of expenses lacked supporting documentation.

The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction, held that no addition can be made in respect of a completed assessment in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal found itself in complete agreement with this view. Since the technical ground concerning the absence of incriminating material was accepted, the assessment order was quashed. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the merits of the disallowances became academic and did not require adjudication. For assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 (ITA Nos. 809 to 813/JP/2025), the appeals were allowed on this technical ground. For assessment year 2018-19 (ITA No. 814/JP/2025), the same technical ground was raised, and the Tribunal's reasoning would apply similarly. The judgment indicates that the appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2017-18 were allowed, and the remaining appeal for AY 2018-19 was to be decided similarly, implying it would also be allowed on the same reasoning. The issue of disallowances on merits was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that incriminating material was unearthed during the search regarding Repairs & Maintenance expenses and Toll & Trip Expenses. Bogus bills and self-made vouchers were found, and large amounts of expenses were not supported by any bills. The Tribunal found that the accountant's statement indicated penalties were settled in cash and debited under Toll & Trip Expenses.

The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction, held that no addition can be made in respect of a completed assessment in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal found that the technical ground raised by the assessee, concerning the absence of incriminating material, was valid. Consequently, the assessment orders for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 (ITA Nos. 809 to 813/JP/2025) were quashed on this preliminary ground. As the primary ground was decided in favour of the assessee, the issues raised on merits for these years were rendered academic and not adjudicated. For assessment year 2018-19 (ITA No. 814/JP/2025), the Tribunal also quashed the assessment order based on the same reasoning regarding the absence of incriminating material. The appeals for assessment year 2019-20 (ITA No. 815/JP/2025) were also allowed on the same technical ground. The operative direction was to allow the appeals, quashing the impugned assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of Toll and Trip expenses and Repairs and Maintenance expenses was a common issue. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made additions based on the statement of the director, Sh. O.P. Gupta, which was retracted. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had directed the assessee to place on record month-wise details with supporting documents from the search and seizure action, without allowing additional evidence, which was found to be beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed disallowances primarily based on the director's statement and unverified observations, without sufficient corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable in the absence of independent corroborative material. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided bills, vouchers, and affidavits to support the expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the disallowances made out of Toll and Trip expenses and Repairs and Maintenance expenses. The Tribunal did not specifically address the issue of payments to RTO officials separately but subsumed it within the broader disallowance of expenses. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s directions for submitting further details to be beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed at 60% as it was based on amended provisions applicable from a later date. The penalty should have been levied as per the law in force at the time of the violation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine personal hardship explained by the assessee. The Tribunal also held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the assessee had disclosed the income and paid the tax before the completion of assessment, and there was a discrepancy in the show cause notice.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. For assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to the AO to re-examine certain claims and make adjustments based on specific figures.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not raised objections regarding the issuance of notice under Section 148 before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), and had failed to comply with several notices, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A). This would allow the assessee to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard to raise objections against the assessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had subsequently obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. However, it also observed that the appellant failed to provide crucial details regarding the genuineness of its activities despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of CIT(A) did not mention whether any deficiency notices were issued to provide an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the deficiencies. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal needed to be decided on merits. Despite the assessee's lethargy in pursuing the case, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given another opportunity to furnish the required balance details and documents to prove the genuineness of its activities. The CIT(E) will decide the application for registration in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, making the notice invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the incorrect email address used by the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries, did not provide necessary documents to the assessee, and did not consider the assessee's submissions. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence like confirmation letters, bank statements, and auditor certificates. Merely because notices under section 133(6) remained unserved, the payment cannot be considered non-genuine, especially when the payees are corporate entities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee expressed interest in withdrawing the appeal by settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given another opportunity to furnish the required balance details and documents to prove the genuineness of its activities. The CIT(E) will decide the application for registration in accordance with law.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all required documents, including the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and details regarding the genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all required documents, including the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and details regarding the genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before both the AO and CIT(A) and thus could not present its defense. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing one more opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other documents to resolve the issues.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. While the assessee had provided bank statements and confirmations from creditors, the Tribunal found that the AO had raised specific queries regarding the capacity of the creditors to advance such loans. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also observed that the assessee had not been able to satisfy the AO or the CIT(A) regarding the capacity of the creditors to advance the amounts. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, upholding the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other documents to resolve the issues.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear to argue the appeal. Based on the detailed analysis of the transactions, the scheme involving penny stocks was found to be a manipulative attempt to convert unaccounted money into tax-exempt income, lacking any genuine business fundamentals. The addition for commission was also upheld. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions without proper examination of the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the correctness of the amounts, realization of advances, and the involvement of family members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without properly considering the assessee's submissions regarding the delay. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the relied-upon documents. Specifically, the flat number B-31 was shown as purchased by Shri Avnish Bedi on one page, while on another page, Shri Virendra Sharma was associated with flat A-2. This inconsistency, along with differing names for the same flat number, cast doubt on the connection of the assessee with the on-money transaction for flat B-31. Concerning Ground No. 2, regarding the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/-, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's calculated rate per square foot (Rs. 11,308, effectively Rs. 11,708 after considering rebates) was close to the AO's determined rate of Rs. 12,000 per square foot. The difference of Rs. 16,35,200/- (calculated as (12,000 - 11,708) * 5600 sq. ft.) did not match the alleged on-money payment of Rs. 55,00,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that while the AO made the addition in the assessee's hands, records indicated the payment might have been made by the assessee's wife. Given these factual discrepancies and the lack of a matching financial difference, the Tribunal found no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/-. Consequently, Ground No. 2 was allowed. As the appeal was allowed on merits, the technical grounds (Ground No. 1 and the additional ground regarding limitation) were rendered academic and did not require a separate finding.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10 was not fatal to claiming exemption, especially when the surplus was invested as per Section 11(5) and Form 10 was eventually filed before the CIT(A). The Gujarat High Court's decisions were relied upon.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's arguments that the assessee failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence for the cash withdrawal's purpose. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10 was not fatal to claiming exemption, especially when the surplus was invested as per Section 11(5) and Form 10 was eventually filed before the CIT(A). The Gujarat High Court's decisions were relied upon.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee admitted receiving notices, the failure of the authorized representative to communicate them prevented participation. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to costs.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee admitted receiving notices, the failure of the authorized representative to communicate them prevented participation. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to costs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the applicant's representative's reliance on flawed legal advice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision, with an opportunity for the applicant to provide the necessary documents and details. The applicant was burdened with costs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as it followed established legal precedents. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that since the bonus amount of Rs. 14,03,538/- was paid by the assessee before the due date of filing the income tax return, its disallowance under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) was incorrect. The order of the CIT(A) confirming this disallowance was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing improper legal advice given to the appellant's representative. The Tribunal restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to comply with all directions and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in violation of natural justice principles by not properly considering the assessee's submissions and adjournment requests due to notices being sent to the wrong email address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing improper legal advice given to the appellant's representative. The Tribunal restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to comply with all directions and submit necessary documents.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's DR concurred with the assessee's submission. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.