ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal noted that the property was a commercial asset specifically designed for business, and the income derived from its exploitation was business income. The assessee's claim for depreciation on such assets was deemed in order, aligning with the business definition and Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts of the case on merits. It was noted that the Assessing Officer himself accepted the cash deposited in the form of non-SBN as trade receipts. The Tribunal found that the deposits made during the demonetization period were out of trade receipts and duly recorded in the assessee's books, and the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided cash books emphasizing regular cash deposits from cash sales and that the AO and CIT(A) had not doubted most of these deposits. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s inference that VAT orders did not prove justification for cash sales to be insufficient. Relying on the principle of consistency and the evidence presented, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was perverse.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issues and taken a plausible view. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, and Section 263 could not be invoked.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. Regarding discounts, the Tribunal agreed that the assessee should have discretion in incurring business expenses. For set-off of losses, the Tribunal found that the other income was related to the specified business activity.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO regarding unexplained investment in gold jewellery was not sustainable. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations, considering social status and customary practices.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of discounts, agreeing that the assessee should have discretion over business expenses and citing relevant High Court decisions. Regarding the set-off of losses, the Tribunal found that the other income was related to the specified business and eligible for set-off.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to discounts, as the assessee should be left to the discretion of expenses incurred in carrying on business, and the income was related to the specified business. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's ground regarding set-off of specified business losses against other income.

The Tribunal held that the share transactions were sham and entered into for tax evasion, confirming the AO's addition of the alleged LTCG as unexplained credit. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a retired government employee with a spouse also in service, had accumulated savings from their combined salaries. The withdrawal of Rs. 16,81,500/- from his bank account over a period of time, from which the cash deposit was made, was supported by bank statements and salary records. The AO failed to provide material to disprove the assessee's explanation or to show alternative use of the withdrawn funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment to the AO without deciding the legal grounds and merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and arguments, and the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued beyond the permissible time limit of four years and did not comply with the proviso to Section 147. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the seized documents relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value. The rent deeds, which were notarized and evidenced by independent witnesses, clearly indicated a rent of Rs. 80,000/- per month. The declaration by Harsh Bhawnani also supported this rent amount.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the bank accounts were not opened by him but by a third party, Mr. Bharat Bomb, by misusing his KYC. Evidence, including an FIR and a CBI investigation, indicated that Mr. Bharat Bomb had fraudulently opened accounts in various names. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfactorily proved that the bank accounts were not opened by him and that his name and KYC were misused.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) acted in a hurried and irrational manner by rejecting the application without appreciating the merits and genuineness of the trust's activities. The Tribunal considered it fit to remand the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) and eligible for depreciation. The decision of the CIT(A) was based on correct interpretation of law and followed established judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd. v. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) acted in a hurried and irrational manner. The Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration was pending at the time of rejection and was granted shortly after. The issue of genuineness of activities was deemed premature as the trust had not yet commenced activities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had acted in violation of principles of natural justice by confirming the assessment order passed ex-parte without proper consideration of the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that the AO adopted stamp duty value without addressing the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) acted in a hurried and irrational manner by rejecting the applications solely based on the pending RPT Act registration. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of the genuineness of activities is not relevant at this preliminary stage, as the trust is yet to commence its activities. The matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that income disclosed during a survey, even if undisclosed, should be taxed under normal provisions as business income, not under Section 115BBE as unexplained investment. The AO wrongly applied Section 115BBE and Section 69A to the income offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of a surrender made during survey without corroborative evidence. It noted that the AO failed to link the surrender to incriminating material and that documents pertaining to earlier years should be assessed in those respective years.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from business receipts and deleting the addition under Section 69A, as the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected and the turnover was accepted. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided confirmations and bank statements, and the AO had not made sufficient inquiry, thus deleting the addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for completing assessments under Section 153A was a mandatory requirement and could not be granted in a mechanical manner. Such perfunctory approval renders the assessment orders illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D is a mandatory requirement for post-search assessments and cannot be granted mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were deemed illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the Excel sheet detailing rental income pertained to the assessee's son's property and a separate entity, not the assessee. Therefore, the addition of rental receipts in the assessee's hands was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A were not justified as the ownership of the assets was established to belong to the BWR Trust, not the assessee. Furthermore, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed bad in law due to the absence of incriminating material for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment and appellate authorities had passed orders ex parte without appreciating the facts and without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing the right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on specific and credible material, including the statement of an entry operator. The additions under Section 68 and 69C were upheld as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions beyond the production of basic documents.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below had passed orders ex parte without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment, requiring the AO to issue a Show Cause Notice and pass a reasoned order after considering all evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal, citing that it did not qualify under Section 253 of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 452/1986, a 'Kachha Arhatiya' acts as an agent and only their commission is considered turnover, not the sale value of the crop. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS and grant credit for TDS mismatch, if any, after considering that the TDS was deducted on the farmer's sale and not the assessee's turnover.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed ex parte without providing adequate opportunity for hearing. The AO and CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case concerning the source of funds being sale proceeds of agricultural land.

The Tribunal observed that the AO did not provide specific reasons or comparable cases to justify the higher GP rate of 20.92%, especially considering the perishable nature of fruits and the increase in turnover. The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating the profit at 20.92% without proper justification.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without following the mandatory procedure of formulating questions and recording reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on specific and credible material, including the statement of an entry operator. The additions under Section 68 and 69C were upheld as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions beyond the production of basic documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, after considering the facts and the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to address the merits of the case and confirm the addition ex parte without granting the assessee adequate opportunity for a hearing. Relying on the principles of natural justice and Supreme Court pronouncements, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to address the merits of the case and made decisions ex parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred by passing ex-parte orders without granting the assessees a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court's observation in the Tin Box Company vs. CIT case was cited, emphasizing that assessment orders must be made after providing an adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The tribunal noted that the AO/CPC disallowed TDS credit due to a mismatch between total receipts in the ITR and Form-26AS. The assessee, a 'Kaccha Arhatia', acts as an agent. The tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986 and previous decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemption) acted in a hurried and irrational manner by rejecting the application without considering the submission on the genuineness of activities. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a good and arguable case for registration and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a 'Kachha Arhatia' acts as an agent, and only the gross commission is to be considered for turnover computation. The assessee is entitled to credit of TDS deducted, and any mismatch should be resolved by verifying Form 26AS and rectifying TDS statements.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 201 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay the appeal, as making an appeal time-barred would not benefit the assessee. The delay was attributed to the counsel's email address not being operated by the assessee, leading to unawareness of the adverse order. Regarding the addition of Rs. 25 lacs, the Tribunal noted that the AO's reasoning was based on general observations of loose papers and non-maintenance of records, not specific discovered material. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if excess stock is found during a survey and the assessee surrenders an amount to cover all discrepancies, including stock, then the excess stock should be considered as part of the undeclared business receipt. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT Vs S.Khadar Khan Son (300 ITR 157 Madras) and the Coordinate Bench decision in Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs. DCIT (131 TTJ (Ahd.) 1). The Tribunal held that the first attempt should be to find a link of the undeclared investment/expenditure with a known head, and if established, it should be taxed as undeclared business receipt. Since the revenue did not point out any nexus of the excess stock with any other receipts other than the assessee's business, the addition of Rs. 25 lacs was deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) for submitting arguments, as the appeal decision was made without considering the assessee's evidence. This denial of opportunity constitutes a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) for submitting arguments, as the appeal decision was made without considering the assessee's evidence. This denial of opportunity constitutes a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. It was noted that the additional income was offered voluntarily to avoid litigation, not based on incriminating material. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns without adverse inference, and there was no specific finding of concealment or inaccurate particulars.