Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the impounded paper was a rough noting for tentative repayment or interest, not evidence of fresh cash advances. The assessee's explanation that these amounts were already recorded as banking channel advances and interest was accounted for was accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the surrendered income was duly incorporated in the return filed under Section 153A and accepted by the AO, there was no concealment. The penalty could not be imposed as the conditions under Section 271(1)(c) were not satisfied.
The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee or their representative failed to appear and provide sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the condonation of delay application and the appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer can make additions on grounds other than those initially recorded for reassessment, this is permissible only if the initial reason for reopening is valid. However, if the initial reason for reopening is found to be invalid, the AO cannot independently make additions on other grounds without issuing a fresh notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 148A(b) were indeed null and void. The Tribunal noted that Section 148A(b) mandates providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving a notice to show cause within a specified time, which must be not less than seven days from the date of issue. The notice in this case was issued on 14.03.2022, with compliance required by 21.03.2022. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahaveer Prasad and Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Nagrecoil, the Tribunal held that when a statute requires a specific minimum period, both terminal days must be excluded. Therefore, the period from 14.03.2022 to 21.03.2022, excluding both dates, falls short of the mandatory seven days. The Tribunal also referred to the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court's decision in Bijendra Singh vs. PCIT, which quashed similar notices under identical circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) and all further proceedings. The merit-based grounds were rendered academic.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in a similar case. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was justified based on the High Court's ruling that Section 153C is the appropriate provision when seized material belongs to a third party, making the Section 148 notice unsustainable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for the hearing or file any submissions, and was also ex-parte before the lower authorities. The burden of proof was on the assessee, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for condonation of delay and the reasons provided. Considering the case involves economic law and tax collection, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for a rehearing on the issue of delay and for proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation and the cash book. The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the bank interest income and did not reject the books of accounts or invoke Section 145(3). The withdrawal of Rs. 9,40,000/- was considered a valid source for the cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that non-registration under the RPT Act is not a bar to IT registration and that the assessee has since obtained RPT registration. Profitability and genuineness of activities were found to be substantiated by the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the objects were not exclusively for a particular community, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal, by referencing various High Court judgments, held that once the assessee proves the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise. The CIT(A) had examined the material and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that a detailed inquiry is required to determine whether the entire area of the new asset purchased by the assessee constitutes a residential house for the purpose of Section 54F, even when the constructed dwelling unit is small in area relative to the vast land. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer observed that the new asset, except for the constructed area, was agricultural land, but failed to ascertain if any produce was sown or if the land was utilized for agricultural purposes. The AO also did not call for land records or reports from revenue authorities regarding the use of the land appurtenant to the construction, nor did the AO visit the site for inspection. The Tribunal found it difficult to decide the issue without further material and that the AO's conclusion that the assessee had purchased agricultural land and denied the benefit of exemption under Section 54F was made without sufficient inquiry. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering all relevant factors and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the surrendered amount was recorded in the books of account as business income and the Assessing Officer did not reject the books or provide material suggesting otherwise, Section 69C and consequently Section 115BBE were not applicable. The income was to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Rajasthan High Court's judgment was squarely applicable. Since the assessment was reopened based on material seized during a search of a third-party group, Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 148.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding merit in the assessee's submission regarding non-receipt of notices and the consequent ex-parte order, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the short delay of 19 days considering the facts and issues involved. However, due to non-compliance and non-participation by the assessee in proceedings, the appeal was disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after granting an opportunity of hearing. The appellant was burdened with costs.
The Tribunal held that the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. is equally applicable to intimations processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The disallowance of ESI/PF contributions made after the due date is permissible under Section 143(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan from M/s. Dolphin Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance of interest was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or other specified authority as required by Section 151 when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year.
The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the ratio of various judgments, allowed the appeal concerning the set-off or telescoping of additional income detected and accepted with respect to the application or investment in cash found during the search and seizure action. The addition made in the assessment order in this regard was directed to be deleted. For the lead case, ITA No. 395/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14), Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the Id. CIT(A) had already considered all aspects and allowed the set-off of additional income. The Tribunal noted that the facts and grounds in ITA Nos. 396 to 401/JP/2025 were similar to ITA No. 395/JP/2025 and decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis. The specific results for each appeal were: ITA No. 395/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) - Allowed; ITA No. 396/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) - Allowed; ITA No. 397/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) - Partly Allowed; ITA No. 398/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) - Allowed; ITA No. 399/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) - Allowed; ITA No. 400/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) - Allowed; ITA No. 401/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) - Partly Allowed. The principle derived is that additional income disclosed and accepted can be set off against investments or applications of cash found during search, and reliance on PBPT Act findings without independent application of mind in income tax proceedings is questionable.
The Tribunal decided the issues by applying the findings from the lead case, ITA No. 395/JP/2025, mutatis mutandis to the other appeals. Regarding the addition of cash found during the search, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed additional income of Rs. 36,60,103/- during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, referencing various case laws including CIT vs. Tyaryamal Balchand and CIT vs. K.S.M Guruswamy Nadar & Sons, held that the assessee is entitled to set off or telescoping of the additional income disclosed with the cash found. Consequently, the addition made in the assessment order for cash found was directed to be deleted, and this ground of appeal was allowed. For other grounds, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed findings and dismissed the relevant grounds. The appeals for AY 2013-14 and AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 were allowed. The appeals for AY 2015-16 and AY 2019-20 were partly allowed, implying that some grounds were allowed and others were dismissed or not pressed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional prerequisite for reassessment. Since the notice was not properly served on the assessee, the reassessment order was invalid. Consequently, the penalty order also did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional prerequisite for reassessment. Since the notice was not properly served and the Revenue failed to prove otherwise, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that once the income which formed the basis for reopening was explained, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction stopped, and he could not make additions on other grounds not connected to the original reasons for belief.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal were broadly categorized into issues concerning the validity of section 153A proceedings, additions on account of unexplained deposits and benami properties, and the invocation of section 115BBE. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's actions without independent application of mind, relying heavily on information from the PBPT Act and statements of Sh. Ram Singh Meena, which were allegedly retracted and not cross-examined. The assessee also argued that Sh. Ram Singh was a separate assessee and the source of funds in his accounts was explained. The Tribunal acknowledged the commonality of issues across the appeals and the agreement to treat one appeal as a lead case. However, the provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the Tribunal's findings or reasoning on these issues, nor does it state the operative directions or the final result. The judgment is incomplete in this regard.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based solely on statements recorded under the PBPT Act without independent application of mind and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the source of funds deposited in Shri Ram Singh Meena's bank account was explained as loans from companies whose assessments were already completed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were consolidated for hearing. The facts indicate that the assessee's case was centralized to the DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur, following a search and seizure operation. The assessee filed a return under Section 153A, declaring the same income as in the regular return. The primary issues revolve around additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 153A and Section 69, relating to unexplained deposits in the bank account of Sh. Ram Singh and alleged investments in benami properties. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenge the arbitrary confirmation of these additions, the reliance on statements from the PBPT Act, the holding of the assessee as beneficial owner of Sh. Ram Singh's assets, the use of retracted statements without cross-examination, and the invocation of Section 115BBE(1). The assessee also contested the directions given by the CIT(A) regarding verification of sale deeds. The Tribunal acknowledged the commonality of issues across the assessment years. The judgment excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's final decision or reasoning on these issues, nor does it detail the arguments presented by the Revenue. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions of the Tribunal on each issue are not available in the provided text.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the addition of Rs. 31,59,558, the Tribunal held that the profit reported in the MTM summary/Global Report was on account of the valuation of unsold scrips. Since this gain was unrealized and the scrips were still in stock as of March 31, 2016, it could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition. This ground was allowed. 2. For the applicability of section 115BBE(1)(a), the Tribunal noted that this ground was consequential to the first issue. Since the addition was deleted, this ground did not require a separate finding. 3. Concerning the TCS credit of Rs. 3,14,257, the Tribunal observed that there was no finding on this issue in the orders of the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for a decision in accordance with the law. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based solely on statements recorded under the PBPT Act without independent application of mind and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the source of funds deposited in Shri Ram Singh Meena's bank account was explained as loans from companies whose assessments were already completed.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the primary basis for the additions was the alleged deposits made by the assessee into Shri Ram Singh Meena's bank account and properties purchased in Shri Ram Singh Meena's name. However, the assessee provided evidence, including bank statements, demonstrating that no funds were transferred by the assessee to Shri Ram Singh Meena. The Tribunal also emphasized that Shri Ram Singh Meena had retracted his earlier statements, which were crucial to the AO's findings. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide an opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine Shri Ram Singh Meena, despite the assessee's request, which is a significant procedural flaw, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Andaman Timber Industries and State of Kerala v. Shaduli Grocery Dealer. The Tribunal also observed that the statements of Shri Ram Singh Meena and Shri Rajesh Kabra were contradictory, and the AO did not resolve these contradictions. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the assessee were considered arbitrary and unjust.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the Section 12A application, the ground of rejection regarding registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was deemed invalid based on a prior coordinate bench decision. The issue of genuineness of activities was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G rejection was set aside and remitted to CIT(E) for fresh consideration, as it was based on the pending 12A registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the appellant's contention regarding non-service of notices was plausible, and the Revenue failed to produce evidence of service. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the Section 12A application, the ground of rejection regarding registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was deemed invalid based on a prior coordinate bench decision. The issue of genuineness of activities was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G rejection was set aside and remitted to CIT(E) for fresh consideration, as it was based on the pending 12A registration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 regarding unexplained household expenses were identical. The primary contention was that the addition was made based on a diary maintained by the assessee's wife, containing rough notes of household expenses, and that these were treated as speaking documents without corroboration. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that entries in a diary maintained by a spouse, pertaining to household expenses, cannot be automatically attributed to the assessee without further evidence. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not discharged the burden of proving that these noted expenses were incurred by the assessee or represented undisclosed income. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the additions of Rs. 2,10,600/- for AY 2014-15 and Rs. 4,08,900/- for AY 2015-16. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal addressed the ground regarding the annulment of assessment. However, the judgment excerpt provided does not contain the Tribunal's findings or reasoning on the additions related to jewellery, construction, or household expenses for AY 2020-21, nor does it address the specific grounds concerning the validity of the assessment order itself (DIN, Section 153D approval). The operative directions for AY 2020-21 are not fully discernible from the provided text.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made a protective addition against the assessee without making any substantive addition. The ownership of the property and the source of its payment remained unverified and under litigation, making it impossible to ascertain the actual owner at that stage.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 1 in AY 2020-21, challenging the validity of the assessment order, was not pressed by the assessee's authorized representative and was therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the additions for unexplained household expenses (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2020-21), the Tribunal observed that the seized diary contained rough notings of household expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations and evidence, including the fact that the diary was maintained by the wife and that the expenses were household in nature, incurred from withdrawals for that purpose. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had erred in making additions based solely on these rough notings without disproving the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided details of explained jewellery, including acquisitions through inheritance and VDIS, which should be considered. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of unexplained household expenses and undisclosed jewellery, remanding the matter for fresh consideration of the jewellery additions after accounting for explained sources. The additions for unexplained investment in house construction were also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's submissions regarding ownership and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of unexplained household expenses (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2020-21) based on the seized diary (Exhibit-6) were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the diary contained rough jottings and memorandum notes regarding household expenses, and the AO treated these deaf and dumb jottings as speaking documents. Furthermore, it was observed that the diary was maintained by the assessee's wife, Smt. Suman Dugar, and there was no evidence to establish that the noted transactions pertained to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the submissions and evidence filed by the assessee, which were not proved to be false. Therefore, the additions were deleted. Regarding the addition of Rs.41,48,824/- for AY 2020-21 on account of alleged undisclosed investment in jewellery, the Tribunal found that the AO had rejected the assessee's submissions and evidence without cogent reasons and failed to prove that the excess jewellery found pertained to the assessee. Consequently, this addition was also deleted. Similarly, the addition of Rs.4,84,050/- for AY 2020-21 on account of unexplained investment in house construction was deleted as the seized document was non-speaking, and the construction was on a property not owned by the assessee, with the AO ignoring the assessee's evidence and valuation report. The issue regarding the annulment of the assessment order for AY 2020-21 was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the substantive additions were deleted, implying relief for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the source of the Rs. 10 lakhs. However, considering the possibility of a different outcome with further evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable and the assessee successfully rebutted it by providing affidavits and supporting documents. The AO failed to make necessary inquiries despite the evidence provided.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not justified as the reasons recorded by the AO were based on suspicion and incorrect facts, not a 'reason to believe'. The addition under Section 68 was also not justified as the business activity had not started.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the appellant's contention regarding non-service of notices was plausible, and the Revenue failed to produce evidence of service. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the source of the Rs. 10 lakhs. However, considering the possibility of a different outcome with further evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. For the first issue concerning the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- for agricultural land purchase, the Tribunal noted that the AO's finding was based on the assessee's statement recorded during search, where he admitted to paying cash and surrendering the amount. However, the Tribunal also considered the assessee's submission that his share was only Rs. 1,30,770/- and that the investment was recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal's reasoning for setting aside the addition on this ground is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it implies a reliance on the books of account and a potential inconsistency in the AO's approach. For the second issue regarding the addition of Rs. 11,24,424/- for house construction expenses, the Tribunal found that part of the payments were made through banking channels, which contradicted the assessee's statement during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the books of account, which were produced before the AO, showed the investment and the source of payment, and the AO did not point out any defects in these books. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted under Section 69. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 11,24,424/-. As the addition was deleted, the applicability of Section 115BBE became academic and was not adjudicated separately. The operative direction was to delete the addition.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance by holding that a net profit rate of 8% of gross receipts is fair. Regarding unsecured loans, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for cash deposits. The additions were quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order in ITA No. 861/JPR/2025 due to lack of requisite jurisdiction. Consequently, the penalty order in ITA No. 862/JPR/2025 was also set aside as it would not survive without a valid assessment order.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals. For AY 2014-15 (ITA No. 493/JP/2025), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that paper extracted from the laptop of Sh. Narayan Goyal could not be added in the assessee's hands but was taxable in the hands of Sh. Daulat Ram Goyal, even though it was not an issue before him. The Tribunal also found that the addition of Rs. 1 lac on account of unexplained investment in advances was not sustainable as the assessee provided an explanation regarding cash availability and receipt back of the amount, which was not properly considered. For AY 2016-17 (ITA No. 495/JP/2025), the appeal was allowed. For AY 2018-19 (ITA No. 496/JP/2025), the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 20 lacs was not justified as the assessee had offered tax on related documents. The enhancement of income by Rs. 3,84,000/- on account of notional interest was also deleted. The addition of Rs. 76,274/- on account of unexplained expenses was deleted as the source was explained. For AY 2019-20 (ITA No. 497/JP/2025), the appeal was allowed, with the decision on grounds 2 & 3 of ITA No. 496/JP/2025 applying mutatis mutandis. For AY 2020-21 (ITA No. 498/JP/2025), the Tribunal noted that the issues raised in grounds 1 & 2 were already decided in ITA No. 496/JP/2025, and therefore, the appeal was allowed. For AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 500/JP/2025), the appeal was allowed. The ratio appears to be that additions based on seized documents require proper confrontation and satisfactory explanation from the assessee, and the AO/CIT(A) must properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in most cases, granting relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on third-party information without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, which violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including ledger accounts, Form C, stock registers, and e-way bills, to substantiate that the amount received from Mamta Trading Company was on account of sales. The AO had not disturbed the sales or closing stock. The Tribunal also observed that the notice under Section 133(6) to Shri Suresh Kumar was issued at the fag end of reassessment proceedings with a very short compliance period for transactions that occurred about 10 years prior. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. and other High Court and ITAT judgments, which emphasize the need for independent verification and providing an opportunity for cross-examination when additions are based on third-party information. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden and was not answerable for the source of funds in the hands of the six companies (mentioned in the omitted part of the judgment, but relevant to the principle of not penalizing the assessee for non-compliance by third parties). Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.