ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of loan creditors, and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding was upheld.

The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if their VSVS-24 resolution was unsuccessful.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be sufficient and bonafide. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was contrary to the Department's policy decision regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague, ambiguous, and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the prima facie disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was beyond the CPC's jurisdiction for the period before April 1, 2021. It also held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and no demand notice for the penalty was issued.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹7,31,395/- as unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the loans of ₹3,05,761/- from M/s Arti Food Products and ₹4,28,724/- from M/s Arti & Sons were taken in the Financial Year 2013-14, relevant to AY 2014-15. Although these amounts were added to the assessee's capital account in FY 2014-15 (relevant to AY 2015-16) on the ground of dissolution of the lending firms, the Tribunal found that the AO's own assessment order, in paragraph 4.1, clearly stated that these loans were taken in FY 2014-15. The Tribunal applied the principle laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Jatia Investment Co. vs CIT, which states that Section 68 cannot be invoked if the money was not credited in the books of account during the financial year in question. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings and did not provide any written submissions or paper book to substantiate its claims. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the additions and disallowances made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the prima facie disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was beyond the CPC's jurisdiction for the period before April 1, 2021. It also held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and no demand notice for the penalty was issued.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable as the transactions were recorded in the assessee's books of account. The addition was made on the basis of the AO's belief that the money was an accommodation entry, which was not supported by the conditions of Section 69A.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of undisclosed purchases, finding that the purchases were recorded in the books of account and the TCS mismatch was due to a delay in uploading by the seller. The addition on account of unexplained investment in shares was also deleted as the investment was made through banking channels and recorded in the books.

The Tribunal held that the closing balance of the undisclosed bank account was a consequence of the peak credit, for which an addition had already been made. Therefore, no separate addition was warranted for the closing balance.

The Tribunal restored the share capital issue to the AO for fresh examination, finding that the authorities below had not properly examined the facts. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the fresh application, stating that the mistake was rectifiable and not an illegality. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits, treating it as filed within the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. On the issue of the addition of ₹4,27,00,000 from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by filing loan confirmations, ITRs, audited financials, and statements of source of funds. The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on statements recorded during search operations was insufficient to treat the loan as unexplained cash credit, especially without corroborating material. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India), and CIT Vs Orissa Corporation. Similarly, for the addition of ₹87,00,000 from Shri Sarju Sharma and M/s Fairland Sales Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished full details, including ITRs, audited financial statements, bank statements, and confirmations. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based only on investigation wing reports and statements, and the CIT(A)'s order was reasoned. The Tribunal also held that the loan from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited was genuine, making the consequential interest expenses genuine. Regarding the estimation of income at 10% of total expenditure, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation reasonable and fair, given the AO's addition was based on presumption without a reasoned basis and the assessee had denied the seized material. The ratio decidendi is that the AO cannot make additions solely on the basis of third-party statements or search materials without corroborating evidence, especially when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of undisclosed purchases, finding that the purchases were recorded in the books of account and the TCS mismatch was due to a delay in uploading by the seller. The addition on account of unexplained investment in shares was also deleted as the investment was made through banking channels and recorded in the books.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal, convinced by the evidence of harassment and failed attempts to seek administrative help, accepted the assessee's claim of a distressed sale. Therefore, the capital gains were to be computed based on the actual sale price, not the DVO's valuation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. On the issue of the addition of ₹4,27,00,000 from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by filing loan confirmations, ITRs, audited financials, and statements of source of funds. The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on statements recorded during search operations was insufficient to treat the loan as unexplained cash credit, especially without corroborating material. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India), and CIT Vs Orissa Corporation. Similarly, for the addition of ₹87,00,000 from Shri Sarju Sharma and M/s Fairland Sales Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished full details, including ITRs, audited financial statements, bank statements, and confirmations. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based only on investigation wing reports and statements, and the CIT(A)'s order was reasoned. The Tribunal also held that the loan from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited was genuine, making the consequential interest expenses genuine. Regarding the estimation of income at 10% of total expenditure, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation reasonable and fair, given the AO's addition was based on presumption without a reasoned basis and the assessee had denied the seized material. The ratio decidendi is that the AO cannot make additions solely on the basis of third-party statements or search materials without corroborating evidence, especially when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to contest its appeals on merits before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that although GST and professional tax were outstanding at the financial year-end, they were duly paid as evidenced by the submitted documents. Therefore, the disallowances were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order due to notices being sent to the wrong email. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. On the issue of the addition of ₹4,27,00,000 from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by filing loan confirmations, ITRs, audited financials, and statements of source of funds. The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on statements recorded during search operations was insufficient to treat the loan as unexplained cash credit, especially without corroborating material. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India), and CIT Vs Orissa Corporation. Similarly, for the addition of ₹87,00,000 from Shri Sarju Sharma and M/s Fairland Sales Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished full details, including ITRs, audited financial statements, bank statements, and confirmations. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based only on investigation wing reports and statements, and the CIT(A)'s order was reasoned. The Tribunal also held that the loan from M/s Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited was genuine, making the consequential interest expenses genuine. Regarding the estimation of income at 10% of total expenditure, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation reasonable and fair, given the AO's addition was based on presumption without a reasoned basis and the assessee had denied the seized material. The ratio decidendi is that the AO cannot make additions solely on the basis of third-party statements or search materials without corroborating evidence, especially when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit of the amalgamated companies. The issue was restored to the AO for necessary verification and to allow the TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a 'telescopic benefit' in respect of the undisclosed rental income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a total disclosure of gross rental income amounting to ₹1,80,00,000/- for the period spanning FY 2008-09 to FY 2014-15. It was observed that this total disclosure was more than the amount of undisclosed rental income assessed by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, considering the factual matrix, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee should be given the benefit of the overall disclosure, as it was sufficient to cover the shortfall in the current year's rental income of ₹59,41,114/-. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. The principle established is that if a comprehensive disclosure of income over multiple years, made during a search, exceeds the assessed undisclosed income for a particular year, the assessee should receive the benefit of such excess disclosure.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity to present its case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, convinced by the evidence of harassment and failed attempts to seek administrative help, accepted the assessee's claim of a distressed sale. Therefore, the capital gains were to be computed based on the actual sale price, not the DVO's valuation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding share capital and premium. The assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to corroborate its claim, even before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for failure to deduct tax at source on the contractual payment. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the late filing due to the assessee not receiving the order. The Tribunal held that the appeal against the Section 143(1)(a) order was separate from the Section 154 proceedings and should have been adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271DA was not attracted as the violation was due to inadvertence, not an attempt to conceal income or avoid tax liability. A small excess amount was received in cash due to customer rush and due diligence.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was covered under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the scheme was unsuccessful.

The Tribunal held that the interest on the tax refund was already assessed in the hands of RBS NV and allowing it as a deduction for the assessee would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)'s order lacked any reasoning or findings, it was not a valid order. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The core issue revolves around whether the land sold was agricultural and therefore exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities wrongly treated the cash deposits as unexplained income. The CIT(A) failed to provide specific reasons for finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory, despite the evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the AO took a correct and possible view by accepting the assessee's claim that the salary income was already subjected to tax. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalidly invoked.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to refer the valuation issue to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as required by Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after obtaining a DVO report.

The Tribunal held that the loan appeared genuine as it was used in business and repaid, and the addition based solely on a third party's statement was not sustainable. The consequential interest addition was also set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It found that the AO had overlooked crucial components like GST/CESS and cash collections, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the cash deposits were unexplained.

The Tribunal found that there was a clear calculation mistake in the exempt income as reflected in the Section 143(1) intimation. It held that this mistake needed to be corrected, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that if the sole basis for reopening the assessment is deleted by the appellate authority, then the reopening itself is invalid, and any subsequent additions made are also invalid.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee provided documents to support the cash deposits before the Tribunal, these were not produced before the AO. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the appeal order was passed ex-parte without proper consideration of documents and grounds. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was due to a wrong mention of the clause in the application form, which led to the dismissal of the applications. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the applications on merit for regular registration.

The Tribunal accepted the independent valuer's report of Rs. 15,50,000, considering the land-locked nature of the property. The addition of Rs. 5,44,730 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was due to a wrong mention of the clause in the application form, which led to the dismissal of the applications. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the applications on merit for regular registration.