Loading ITAT cases…
133 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Regarding the addition of Rs. 24,08,641/- related to unexplained stock, the Tribunal found that some seized material included reworked items and items made from melting old stock. While acknowledging the assessee's explanation and supporting documents, the Tribunal granted a 30% rebate on the addition, including the Rs. 79,276/- already provided by the CIT(A), leading to a deletion of Rs. 6,43,316/-. For the addition of Rs. 4,81,728/- based on a presumptive rate for precious and semi-precious stones, the Tribunal deleted 30% of the addition, amounting to Rs. 1,44,518/-, for consistency and to meet the ends of justice. The remaining amount of Rs. 21,02,535/- was considered as unaccounted sales. Applying the profit ratio of 30.90%, the addition was restricted to the profit embedded, amounting to Rs. 9,40,207/-. Regarding the addition of Rs. 3,26,415/- for wages, the Tribunal allowed telescoping against the brought-forward unaccounted profit of Rs. 17,01,179/- and the current year's determined unaccounted profit of Rs. 9,40,207/-, totaling Rs. 26,41,386/-. The addition for wages was thus set off, with the remaining unaccounted profit of Rs. 23,14,971/- available for subsequent years. The addition of Rs. 30,900/- based on a seized page mentioning 'SOLD' was deleted due to the absence of corroborative evidence to prove cash receipt. The issue of initiating proceedings under section 153A was not explicitly decided but implicitly accepted by adjudicating the substantive grounds.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding on this ground, implying it was not the primary focus of the decision or was implicitly accepted for the purpose of deciding the substantive issues. On the issue of alleged unaccounted cash commission and unaccounted commission, the Tribunal granted a 30% rebate on material cost for gold/silver items, deleting Rs. 22,37,226/-. For additions related to precious and semi-precious stones, 30% of the addition of Rs. 14,91,484/- was deleted (Rs. 1,44,518/-). For the remaining addition of Rs. 21,02,535/- related to unaccounted sales of manufactured goods, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to the profit element, calculated at 30.90% of the cost of goods sold, resulting in an addition of Rs. 9,40,207/-. Regarding unexplained cash expenses of Rs. 3,26,415/-, the Tribunal allowed telescoping against the available unaccounted profit of Rs. 26,41,386/-, effectively allowing this ground. The addition of Rs. 30,900/- based on the seized page mentioning 'SOLD' was deleted due to the lack of corroborative evidence to prove cash receipt. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the extent of additions for unexplained stock in manufacturing activities and unexplained cash expenses beyond the telescoping benefit.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee and that the AO's disallowances were not justified. The AO failed to point out any specific defect in the documents provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A was not challenged on merits, and therefore, it was not quashed. Regarding the additions for unexplained stock in manufacturing activities, the Tribunal noted that seized material included repaired/reworked items and items made from melting old stock. While acknowledging the assessee's explanation was not fully matching, a 30% rebate was granted on the addition, leading to a deletion of Rs. 6,43,316/-. For additions based on a presumptive rate for precious and semi-precious stones, 30% of the addition was deleted, amounting to Rs. 1,44,518/-, to maintain consistency and meet the ends of justice. The remaining addition was restricted to the profit element embedded in the unaccounted sales, directing the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 9,40,207/-. For wages, the addition was deleted by allowing telescoping against brought-forward unaccounted profit of Rs. 17,01,179/- and newly determined profit of Rs. 9,40,207/-, totaling Rs. 26,41,386/-. Regarding the addition for paintings, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 30,900/- due to the absence of corroborative evidence to prove cash receipt against the alleged sale, stating that mere mention of 'SOLD' on a seized sheet was insufficient. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessee had not received the assessment orders due to business closure and shifting of their office. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to genuine reasons and the non-service of assessment orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal has not provided its decision or reasoning in the excerpt. The judgment is incomplete, and therefore, it is not possible to determine what the Tribunal decided on the issues raised, the reasoning behind its decision, or the operative directions issued. No finding on the issue of unexplained cash credits is recorded, nor is any ratio decidendi discernible from the provided text. The excerpt does not mention any issue being left undecided.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the action under Section 147/148 taken by the AO was not justified and was bad in law. This decision was based on the additional ground of appeal (Ground No. 8) which was admitted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in similar cases, which held that notices issued under Section 148 are bad in law when the basis for reassessment is material seized during a search conducted in the premises of another assessee, and that Section 153C should be resorted to in such circumstances. The Tribunal also referred to a Supreme Court decision affirming the Rajasthan High Court's view that provisions of Sections 153A to 153D have prevalence over regular assessment/reassessment provisions under Section 148/147 when incriminating material is found relating to a person other than the one searched. Consequently, the reassessment order and the additions made were held to be bad in law and were deleted. As the primary legal issue regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee, other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated as they became academic.
The Tribunal held that the appeal concerning the quantum of income (ITA No. 973/JP/2024) was allowed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a return of income on 14.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs. 97,04,424/-. The AO's action of ignoring this return and proceeding with an assessment based on a computation of income at Rs. 1,10,04,980/- was considered an error. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid taxes and interest, and the delay in filing was partly attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw extensions granted by the Apex Court. The Tribunal found that the AO should have considered the return filed on 14.12.2021. The rectification application under Section 154 was not fully considered by the AO and CIT(A) regarding the income offered. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the return filed on 14.12.2021 and re-assess the income accordingly. The appeal concerning penalty under Section 271B (ITA No. 975/JP/2024) was dismissed, as the assessee failed to get its accounts audited as required under Section 44AB and offered no reasonable cause for this failure. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271B. The third appeal (ITA No. 974/JP/2024) was not explicitly detailed in the provided text but the final result indicates it was allowed.
The Tribunal decided the appeals as follows: For ITA Nos. 973/JP/2024 and 975/JP/2024, the appeals were allowed. For ITA No. 974/JP/2024, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities concerning the penalty levied under Section 271B. The reasoning was that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited as required under Section 44AB and did not provide any reasonable cause for this failure. The lower authorities correctly confirmed the penalty. The issue regarding the adopted income and the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee offered two different taxable total incomes was addressed in the context of the penalty appeal, implying that the quantum aspect might have been resolved or was not the primary focus of the penalty appeal's outcome. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271B, stating that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 44AB and failed to submit the required report without a reasonable cause. The appeal concerning the penalty for not getting books audited (ITA No. 975/JP/2024) was dismissed, and the AO's order was confirmed. The judgment indicates that the quantum appeal (ITA No. 973/JP/2024) and the penalty for quantum appeal (ITA No. 974/JP/2024) were allowed, while the penalty for not getting books audited (ITA No. 975/JP/2024) was dismissed.
The Tribunal, acknowledging a bonafide mistake by the AR in filing a single appeal for two orders, restored the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on both grounds. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions. The acquisition of shares through cheque payment, credit in the Demat account, online sale on the stock exchange with STT payment, and the fact that 'Channel Nine Entertainment Limited' was a listed and tradable company, even at the time of assessment, supported the genuineness. The Tribunal noted that SEBI's orders did not point to violations by the company and that the capital acquired through the IPO process was not considered invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and held that the LTCG claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) could not be disbelieved. The addition under Section 68 was deleted. On the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had made real sales transactions and incurred only STT and brokerage charges, which were already reflected in the tax return. Therefore, the addition on account of unexplained expenditure for commission was not sustained, and the ground was allowed. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) allowed a similar application for registration under Section 12AB on the same date without raising the issue of non-commencement of activities. Therefore, the rejection of the 80G(5)(iii) application was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, making the subsequent assessment invalid. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for another opportunity to present evidence and decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the special provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the Act, which apply in cases of search and requisition, have prevalence over general provisions like Section 147/148. Since the department had already issued notices under Section 153C, the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the special provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the Act, which apply in cases of search and requisition, have prevalence over general provisions like Section 147/148. Since the department had already issued notices under Section 153C, the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the special provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the Act, which apply in cases of search and requisition, have prevalence over general provisions like Section 147/148. Since the department had already issued notices under Section 153C, the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper and detailed inquiry to establish that the assessee had advanced cash loans from personal income or charged interest. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals, holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not leviable when the assessee files a revised return declaring higher income, and the assessed income ultimately matches the revised return, with no additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, which stated that if a revised assessment is regularized by the revenue and the assessing authority fails to take any objection, the declaration of income made by the assessee in the revised return can be treated as bona fide. The Tribunal found that in the present cases, the revised returns were accepted, and the final assessed income remained the same as declared in the revised returns. Therefore, there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The Tribunal noted that the issue for AY 2014-15 was similar to AY 2012-13, and the decision in the latter would apply mutatis mutandis to the former. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law. The key fact was that the assessee had revised its return of income to correct a claim under Section 40(b), and the income finally assessed remained the same as declared in the revised return. The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the revised return, and there was no difference between the income finally assessed and the income returned by the assessee. Relying on its own decision for AY 2012-13 (which was similar) and the decision in DCIT vs. Purti Sakhar Karkhana (Nagpur - Trib), the Tribunal held that when the returned income and assessed income remain the same, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal further noted that the issue for AY 2014-15 was similar to AY 2012-13, and the findings would apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 4,04,481 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 2,79,985 for AY 2014-15 were deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 1% of the transaction value as brokerage income, finding no illegality in the estimation of brokerage when documentary evidence was lacking.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) afresh. The CIT(E) was directed to take into account relevant CBDT circulars regarding provisional approval and registration validity, and provide the applicant an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age and difficulty in contacting tax consultants. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on a notification extending the leave encashment benefit to non-government employees retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's legal heirs' contention that penalty cannot be levied on them after the assessee's death was not sustainable in light of Section 159 of the Act, which makes legal representatives liable for sums payable by the deceased. However, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to decide the extent of the estate inherited by the legal representative.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 1% of the transaction value as brokerage income, finding no illegality in the estimation of brokerage in the absence of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) should not be initiated or concluded if the additions are dropped or the issue is still under appeal. Since the quantum addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and a subsequent appeal by the revenue was dismissed, the basis for levying the penalty was removed. Consequently, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the Id. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the provisional certificate required consideration in light of CBDT Circular 06/2023, which was not properly addressed by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on this point. Regarding the non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in ITA No. 567/JPR/2024, holding that such registration is not essential for IT Act registration, thus this ground of rejection was not sustainable. For the non-genuineness of activities, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the significance of the issue, restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/- for non-compliance before the CIT(E). Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, the impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E). The application under Section 80G(5)(iii) was also remitted for fresh decision for similar reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the deceased assessee, despite the Assessing Officer being informed of her death, was null and void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the assessment order and the appellate order.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted both applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not considered relevant CBDT circulars and had made contradictory observations. The appellant was also burdened with costs.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for its issuance was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the department itself had acted upon the High Court decision by issuing a notice under Section 153C prior to filing the appeal, the department's appeal was not maintainable.