Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits, especially when the delay is not deliberate or mala fide. Substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations.
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.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice. The Tribunal emphasized that appeals should be decided on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) declined to admit additional evidence. Considering the nature of the dispute and the evidence, the Tribunal felt a fresh factual verification was warranted. The Tribunal decided to set aside the appellate order and restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in all five assessment years is not sustainable and deserves to be deleted. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee made a suo moto offer of additional income in revised returns filed under section 148, which was accepted by the AO without drawing any adverse inference regarding the genuineness of the books of account. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Tribunal noted that the offer of income was made to avoid prolonged litigation over the estimation of unverifiable expenses and could not be equated with furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the AO did not record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) – concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars – was violated, which vitiates the penalty proceedings, as held in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Pushpendra Surana, stating that mere disallowance or surrender of a claim without establishing concealment or inaccuracy does not attract penalty, and where income offered under section 148 is accepted without independent evidence of concealment, penalty cannot be sustained. The operative direction was the deletion of the penalty.
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.
The appeal is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) which has been challenged by the assessee on grounds that the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the assessing officer are bad in law and on facts.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in ITA No. 409/Jodh/2023 was Rs. 1,46,710/-, and in ITA No. 383/Jodh/2023, there was no tax demand raised, indicating a tax effect below the threshold of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Departmental Representative provided no material to justify maintainability under exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in ITA No. 409/Jodh/2023 was Rs. 1,46,710/-, and in ITA No. 383/Jodh/2023, there was no tax demand raised, indicating a tax effect below the threshold of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Departmental Representative provided no material to justify maintainability under exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the verification of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a substantive condition. Since the form was available before the processing of the return, the assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed.
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.