Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(d) was beyond the surviving period of limitation as calculated according to the Apex Court's decision and TOLA. Therefore, the notice was invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved appreciation of evidence and was a pure finding of fact. It referred to various High Court judgments emphasizing that appeals involving factual appreciation do not raise substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made with surplus funds is attributable to its eligible activities and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd.
The Tribunal held that additions based on WhatsApp messages and diaries without corresponding evidence of transactions are not sustainable. It also ruled that Section 40A(2) is not applicable for making notional interest additions when interest is charged from parties.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid without proving the assessee's fault, especially when based solely on broker's actions. The Tribunal also found that the transactions, supported by contract notes and reflected in books, could not be deemed non-genuine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. However, since the department had initiated proceedings under Section 148A(d) for the same assessment year and the assessee was participating in those proceedings, the appeal was held to have become infructuous and was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was illegal as the Assessing Officer acted on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The disallowance of commission expenses was also found to be unjustified on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons, supported by an affidavit and lack of objection from the Revenue, to be sufficient. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the interest income received by the assessee from investments in banks and financial institutions is attributable to the activity of providing credit facilities to its members and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. and the ratio laid down by a coordinate bench in Kakateeya Mutually Aided Thrift and Credit Coop Society Ltd. The Tribunal reasoned that there was no legislative intent to deny the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) when a cooperative society makes investments in cooperative banks, nationalized banks, or financial institutions and earns interest on such investments. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld. The appeals for AY 2020-21 and 2022-23 were decided mutatis mutandis based on the decision for AY 2017-18. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay occurred due to a lack of communication regarding the appellate orders and that the appeals were filed promptly upon learning of the orders. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the interest income earned from investments in banks and financial institutions is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Another, which held that cooperative societies are eligible for deduction on interest income received from investments in banks, as the statute uses the expression 'attributable to'. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC who had deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were invalid because the company's name was struck off, and it ceased to exist before the assessment order was passed. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments where assessments against non-existent companies were quashed. Consequently, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act does not survive as registration was obtained later. For commencement of activities, it was suggested that the CIT(E) should liberally consider condonation of delay. Regarding non-genuineness and religious nature of activities, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act does not survive as registration was obtained later. For commencement of activities, it was suggested that the CIT(E) should liberally consider condonation of delay. Regarding non-genuineness and religious nature of activities, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved appreciation of evidence and was a pure finding of fact. It referred to various High Court judgments emphasizing that appeals involving factual appreciation do not raise substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete information to the CIT(E) and accepted this fact. However, considering the circumstances, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that a prior year's credit carried forward does not become a fresh cash credit in the current year. For certain fresh credits, verification was required, and the matter was restored to the AO for this limited purpose.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had accepted the evidentiary value of the assessee's statement during the search, the explanation for the cash found at the residence, attributed to the accumulated savings of the assessee's wife and adult daughter, should have been accepted. The lower authorities failed to rebut this explanation or prove it false. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 5,00,136/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted, rendering the applicability of Section 115BBE academic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. It was noted that the assessment was not a "Best Judgement" assessment under Section 144, as the assessee had provided all necessary details. The Tribunal allowed deduction under Section 54B, deleting the addition made by the AO on account of long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's invocation of Section 263 to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under a different section was beyond the scope of his revisional powers. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the Pr.CIT's order.
The Tribunal allowed grounds 6 to 6.4, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The Tribunal found that the cash deposited during demonetization was from cash sales duly recorded in the assessee's audited books of accounts. The AO did not dispute these sales or reject the books of accounts. The Tribunal followed the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO, stating that sales proceeds recorded in cash cannot be considered unexplained income if the sales are not disbelieved. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not reject the cash book or point out any discrepancies. The Tribunal observed that the addition amounted to taxing the income twice. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT instruction No. 03/2017 was not considered by the lower authorities. Regarding grounds 7 and 8, the Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 270A and Section 271AAC were academic at this stage as they were not levied and disputed, and thus did not require a finding. The Tribunal did not provide specific findings on grounds 1 to 5, implying they were not pressed or were decided against the assessee implicitly by the final result.
The Tribunal held that the order of the PCIT passed under section 263 was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal found that the prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction under section 263 is that the AO's order must be established to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this case, the PCIT had not pinpointed any specific aspect where the AO's enquiry was lacking, nor was any defect found in the record collected by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO had incorporated the details of the enquiry conducted in the assessment order, and the revenue had not pointed out any error. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, stating that every loss of revenue does not automatically mean the order is prejudicial to the revenue, especially when the AO has taken a possible view permissible in law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the PCIT and restored the order passed by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before both lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the case afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 6,00,000/- were sourced from the assessee's business and directed deletion of the sustained addition of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Regarding business income, the Tribunal noted the assessee's reported loss due to depreciation and directed deletion of the estimated addition of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The Tribunal held that since the trust was for the benefit of a minor with a determined share, tax should not be charged at MMR. The AO was directed to charge tax as an individual or AOP.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all necessary documents regarding registration and activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation that the firm's business was closed and the CIT(A)'s order was not received until much later. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal noted that the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) and show cause notices, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's primary contention was non-receipt of notices due to business closure, while the Revenue stated notices were served via speed post and online. To resolve this dispute equitably, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on the merits of whether the notices were duly served. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry before allowing the deduction under Section 54F. The assessee had submitted an agreement to sell, proof of payments, and details of the cost of improvement, along with confirmations from contractors. Crucially, the assessee also submitted the copy of the registry in support of the claim. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT herself admitted the submission of the agreement to sell. Citing the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Lal Etc Vs CIT and the Gujarat High Court in Kishorbhai Harjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal stated that extinguishment of rights by an agreement to sell can be considered a transfer. The Tribunal concluded that since the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and examined the details and evidence, the assessment order could not be termed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not in accordance with Section 263. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 and taxed under Section 115BBE was not justified. It reasoned that if sales are accepted and taxed as business income, the cash deposited from such sales cannot be treated again as unexplained cash credit, leading to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no option but to decide the appeal based on the available material as the assessee failed to furnish supporting documents. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO, including trading addition, unexplained unsecured loans, unexplained capital, and short-term capital gains, dismissing all grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy and circumstances. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, as the initial proceedings were ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was lethargic and failed to cooperate with the authorities, the matter should be decided on merits to provide an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. However, the Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it relevant for a fair adjudication. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to contest the case with the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the trust was for the benefit of a minor with a determined share, tax should not be charged at MMR. The AO was directed to charge tax as an individual or AOP.
The Tribunal addressed each ground raised by the assessee. Regarding the first ground, concerning the jurisdictional AO, the CIT(A) had dismissed it, stating that the assessee regularly attended proceedings and never raised this issue before the AO, making it unfair to discuss at that stage. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings without raising the jurisdictional issue. On the second ground, regarding the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2), the CIT(A) observed that the assessment order clearly mentioned the issue of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s observation. Concerning the third ground, on the violation of natural justice, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee filed the return in response to a notice under Section 148 and received notices under Sections 143(3) and 142(1), requiring submission of details. The assessment was completed within a reasonable time. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was provided with opportunities. For the fourth ground, concerning the addition under Section 69, the CIT(A) noted that while the assessee claimed the cash deposit was from previous withdrawals and the share transaction resulted in a loss, the AO was not convinced and made the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, finding no infirmity in the AO's order. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the AO had properly verified the information and made the addition, confirming the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal noted the assessee's allegation that the previous CA failed to communicate notices, which prevented the assessee from participating in the assessment and penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer. While acknowledging the absence of an affidavit from the concerned CA, the Tribunal found that the circumstances, including the filing of appeals on the same day as a bank account attachment order, supported the assessee's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it just to remit all the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were disposed of for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the trust was for the benefit of a minor with a determined share, tax should not be charged at MMR. The AO was directed to charge tax at individual or AOP rates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the circumstances explained. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to submit necessary documents and present their case.
The Tribunal admitted additional documents filed by the assessee and remanded the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration. The CIT is to re-examine the application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G based on the newly submitted evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and had failed to present his case adequately. To provide an opportunity for a fair hearing, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all necessary documents regarding registration and activities.
The Tribunal admitted additional documents filed by the assessee and remanded the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration. The CIT is to re-examine the application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G based on the newly submitted evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to produce necessary documents, including registration under the RPT Act and details regarding the genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities. However, to provide an opportunity to be heard, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to decide afresh, allowing the assessee to present their case with a condition of cooperation and no frivolous adjournments.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the non-communication by the previous CA. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the non-communication by the previous CA. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to produce necessary documents, including registration under the RPT Act and details regarding the genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the non-communication by the previous CA. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the non-communication by the previous CA. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the non-communication by the previous CA. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the non-communication by the previous CA. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.