Loading ITAT cases…
133 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and consolidated, without proper application of mind for each assessment year. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax was mechanical, consolidated, and lacked application of mind for each assessment year independently. Citing judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court (ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal) and various High Courts (PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar), the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153D approval is a mandatory safeguard and cannot be granted mechanically. The Tribunal also referred to consistent decisions of ITAT benches. Consequently, the assessment orders framed under Section 153A read with Section 153D for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 were held to be unsustainable in law and were quashed. As a result of quashing the assessment orders, the grounds raised in the revenue's appeals became academic. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by substantiating the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction. The repayment through banking channels further supported the claim, and the addition under Section 68 was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay. The Bench noted the peculiar circumstances, including the original appeal being filed on paper within time, the assessee's demise, and the subsequent transition to the faceless regime leading to a late online filing by the legal heir. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed on 23.03.2016, and the appeal was filed on 05.04.2016, with hearings commencing on 25.01.2018. The assessee passed away on 12.07.2017, and the legal heir filed the online appeal in 2018. The Tribunal felt that in such circumstances, the appeal should be decided on merits rather than technical latches. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues on merit, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's bona fide belief and consultant's lack of proper guidance. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to decide afresh, providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit required documents.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- (for Anshul Jain) and Rs. 2,70,000/- (for Ankit Jain) on account of property purchase as unexplained investment under section 69 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not establish any direct nexus between the seized documents and the alleged unexplained investment. The AO failed to demonstrate how the seized material pertained to the assessee or evidenced the use of unaccounted income for the investment. The addition was based on presumption rather than concrete material. The Tribunal also noted that LIC policy payments and property investments were recorded in the ITR filed by the assessee. Respectfully following the Apex Court's decision in DCIT vs. M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., which set aside assessments under section 153C when no incriminating material was found, the Tribunal found no merit in making these additions. Consequently, the appeal in ITA No. 1301/JPR/2024 was allowed. The Tribunal further held that the issues in ITA Nos. 1302 & 1303/JPR/2024 were similar, and the decision in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, all appeals were allowed. The Tribunal did not specifically address the grounds concerning ex-parte orders, section 153C initiation, section 69C additions, or penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) in detail, but the allowance of the appeals implies these grounds were also found in favour of the assessee, or the primary issue regarding section 69 additions was decisive.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient non-interest bearing funds to cover investments and advances. Therefore, it was presumed that interest-bearing loans were used for interest-earning purposes, establishing a clear nexus. The disallowance of interest expenses was deemed unjustified.
During the hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- (for Anshul Jain) and Rs. 2,70,000/- (for Ankit Jain) on account of unexplained investment in property under Section 69 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not establish any direct nexus between the seized documents and the alleged unexplained investment. The AO failed to demonstrate how the seized material pertained to the appellant or evidenced the use of unaccounted income for the investment. The addition was based on presumption rather than concrete material. The Tribunal also observed that if LIC policy payments and property investments were recorded in the ITR filed by the assessee, additions could not be made. Relying on the Apex Court's decision in DCIT vs. M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., which set aside assessments under Section 153C for lack of incriminating material, the Tribunal found no merit in making such additions. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1301/JPR/2024 was allowed. The Tribunal further held that the issues in ITA Nos. 1302 & 1303/JPR/2024 were similar, and the decision in ITA No. 1301/JPR/2024 would apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, all appeals of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal did not specifically address the ex-parte nature of the order or the penalty proceedings on merits, but the allowance of appeals implicitly addresses these issues by setting aside the additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) rightly followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, which became binding. The powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with AO, and the orders merged, confirming the authorities' actions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued without proper sanction from the appropriate authority, making the entire assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12AA of the Act was established by other evidence, including an 80G approval certificate and AO's acceptance in a previous assessment year. Therefore, denial of exemption solely for non-production of the 12AA certificate was incorrect. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had applied more than 85% of its income for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals. Regarding the additions under Sections 69 and 69C, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not establish any direct nexus between seized documents and the alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to demonstrate how seized material pertained to the assessee or evidenced the use of unaccounted income for the investment. The addition was based on presumption rather than concrete material. The Tribunal also held that if LIC policy payments and property investments were recorded in the ITR filed by the assessee, additions could not be made. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in DCIT vs. M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., which held that assessments under Section 153C are rightly set aside if no incriminating material is found. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in making these additions. Based on these observations and considering the technical grounds, the appeals were allowed. The decision in ITA No. 1301/JPR/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 1302 & 1303/JPR/2024. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) should be decided first. Since the assessee had raised this objection, the case was sent back to the Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional aspect.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was initiated on an amount of Rs. 69,78,903, which represented undisclosed income comprising Rs. 49,50,000 surrendered for house construction investment and Rs. 20,28,903 for excess stock valuation. The assessee had accepted this amount as undisclosed income and offered it while filing the return of income. The Tribunal noted that the law, as amended, provides for a penalty of 10% of the undisclosed income if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in the course of search, specifies the manner in which it was derived, pays the tax, and furnishes the return declaring such income. The AO had levied a penalty of 30% under Section 271AAB(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the AO erred in levying the penalty at 30% and that the CIT(A) relied on judgments delivered before the law was amended. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the levy of penalty to 10% on the undisclosed income of Rs. 69,78,903 instead of 30%. The issue regarding the additional income of Rs. 4,24,929 was not explicitly decided but was implicitly included in the overall undisclosed income for which the penalty was restricted.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This decision was made to ensure the issue is decided on merits and not scuttled without a proper hearing, despite the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the legal heir, considering the written submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being a senior citizen and not well-versed with technology. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present her case and documents, emphasizing that the assessee should not seek frivolous adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments, and a cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions on an issue not originally forming the basis for reopening, especially when the original reason for reopening was explained. The CIT(A) was directed to verify the purchase and sale deeds for capital gains calculation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided evidence like Khasra Girdawari, crop details, and a substantial agricultural loan, indicating significant agricultural activity. Subsequent assessment years also showed similar agricultural income and cash deposits accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's submission that the delay was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, including the remoteness of its location and reliance on consultants who provided misleading information. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission that the reasons were sufficient. On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had reported a GTI of Rs. 21,479/- and claimed a deduction of Rs. 34,49,015/- under Section 80P in the ITR. The AO disallowed the entire Rs. 34,49,015/-. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's consultant failed to properly represent the case, the dispute should be decided on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's arguments regarding the claim under Section 80P and its allowability were not properly advanced due to the consultant's fault. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide afresh the assessee's eligibility for deduction and chargeability of income, providing one more opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was personal in nature and not incurred for the purpose of earning income from other sources. Therefore, the disallowance of the exchange loss by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The tribunal observed that the DVO report has been pending for over 8 years, causing significant delay. The matter was restored to the AO to decide afresh after obtaining the DVO's valuation report, emphasizing that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 631 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation of lack of knowledge of the online system. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order because the assessee failed to provide written submissions or evidence, leading to the confirmation of the addition under Section 69C. The AO had made the addition of Rs. 15,75,677/- as unexplained expenditure because the assessee did not file a return of income, failed to comply with notices, and did not explain the source of credit card payments. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities. To ensure that the lis between the parties is decided on merits and no one's rights are scuttled without an opportunity of being heard, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with the condition that the assessee would not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds and would cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The decision to restore the matter was not to be construed as having any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's medical condition and issues with notice service. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide required documents and information, with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and an affidavit from the lender, to substantiate the unsecured loan. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the date of receipt of the order as evidence. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the addition of cash deposits and credit card payments to the Assessing Officer for determination under presumptive taxation provisions.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide required documents and information, with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and could not present submissions to settle the dispute. Considering the prayer for a fresh opportunity to adduce documents, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal held that the dispute should be decided on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The AO is directed to decide the case afresh, with the condition that the assessee will not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds and will remain cooperative. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the AO. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of whether the assessment was bad in law for want of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice was implicitly addressed by restoring the matter for a fresh adjudication on merits. The addition of Rs. 55,71,875/- was not decided on merits but was part of the set of issues to be re-examined by the AO. The charging of interest under Sections 234A/234B was also part of the consequential issues to be re-examined.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities, the tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the legal ground raised by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that while the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and initiated proceedings under section 147/148, their jurisdiction ceased once it was found that the income, which was the basis for the belief of escapement, was actually explained. The Tribunal referred to the principle that if the primary income believed to have escaped assessment is explained, the AO cannot proceed to tax other income that subsequently comes to notice during the reassessment proceedings under section 147. The Tribunal agreed with the view of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Atlas Cycle Industries' case. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the AO was justified in initiating proceedings but lost jurisdiction once the initial reason for belief was explained. Therefore, the addition made and confirmed by the lower authorities was quashed. Ground No. 2 became academic, and Ground No. 3 was consequential.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were defective and irrelevant to the case, thus dismissing the appeals on maintainability. However, on merits, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition was incorrect as the plots were not owned by the assessee, the transaction was not materialized, and no payment was received.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were defective and irrelevant to the case, thus dismissing the appeals on maintainability. However, on merits, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition was incorrect as the plots were not owned by the assessee, the transaction was not materialized, and no payment was received.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases, the AO's rejection of the entire cash deposit was not entirely justified. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing an estimation of profit on the undisclosed turnover.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 powers was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verification and the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The cited judicial precedents supported this view.
The Tribunal held that expenses for boundary wall and mitti bharai were allowable as they were supported by evidence and constituted improvements to the capital asset. However, expenses for security guards were disallowed.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) to a deceased person, and then proceeding with assessment against the legal heir, is a violation of procedural law. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) are liable to be set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 powers was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verification and the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The cited judicial precedents supported this view.
The tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 19,00,000 for the flat purchase should be restricted to Rs. 4,75,000 as the source of the remaining amount could not be established. The disallowance under Section 80C and the addition for FDRs were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were not bad in law for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the AO had correctly invoked Section 153A based on the search and seizure operations conducted. Regarding the additions on account of unexplained capital and loans, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence to substantiate the genuineness and source of these amounts. Consequently, the AO was justified in making the additions under Section 68 of the Act. Similarly, concerning the estimation of Gross Profit, the Tribunal found that the assessee's trading results were not verifiable and the AO had made a reasonable estimation based on the available material. The CIT(A) had also applied his mind and confirmed the additions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the AO. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal held that additions based on unverified loose papers without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. It also noted that attributing profits from related entities to the assessee would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were bad in law for want of jurisdiction, as no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made additions on account of opening capital, loans, and estimated gross profit without relying on any specific incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kabul Chander (2014) 364 ITR 510 (P&H) and other similar judgments, which state that in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search, additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders passed under Section 153A. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions on account of unexplained capital, loans, or gross profit, as the entire assessment under Section 153A was found to be without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to delete all additions made under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of accounts and subsequent addition were not justified, especially since the assessee's declared profit margin was better than in preceding years. The Tribunal deleted the trading addition.
The Tribunal held that additions based on unverified loose papers without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. It also noted that attributing profits from related entities to the assessee without sufficient proof could lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that additions based on unverified loose papers without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. It also noted that attributing profits from related entities to the assessee would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal decided to delete the trading addition sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The assessee, engaged in civil construction, declared a Net Profit (NP) of 4.26% on a turnover of Rs. 17,97,27,307/- for AY 2018-19, which was higher than the NP of 3.04% declared for the immediately preceding assessment year. The AO rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) due to alleged unreliability and estimated the business income by applying 8% of the turnover, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,43,78,184/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted that the AO, after rejecting the books, computed the income by considering the book results, making an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 91,05,710/- to the declared income, which was not in accordance with the Act. Since the NP declared for the current year was better than preceding years, even after a heavy increase in turnover, no trading addition was called for after rejection of books. Therefore, the trading addition was deleted. Consequently, the issue of rejection of books of account became academic. The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee. Issues related to labour expenses, sundry creditors, penalty, and interest for AY 2017-18, and the violation of natural justice for AY 2018-19, were not explicitly decided as the primary addition was deleted, rendering them academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India due to deep and pervasive State control, monopoly status, and public importance of its functions. Consequently, the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The seized documents, particularly pages 1 to 8 of Exhibit 4, were found to relate to transactions between Shri Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Hemant Garg concerning the sale of shares in M/s Royal Developers and the Chomu House project. The AO himself had assessed Shri Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal on his share and his brother's share in these projects, indicating that the transactions were not entered into by the assessee firm. The interest figures were calculated on a notional basis between Shri Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Hemant Garg, and no income was earned by the appellant firm. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not make any substantive addition in the hands of any partner corresponding to the protective addition made in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal also observed that the capital contribution by Shri Dharmendra Agarwal in the assessee firm, which was duly recorded in the books and reflected through banking channels, was wrongly treated as unexplained investment by the AO. Since the transactions were between two independent parties and no substantive addition was made by the AO in the hands of any partner, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee firm did not survive. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.