ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the explanation provided by the assessee was considered genuine. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form-9A was due to a bona fide reason, specifically the hospitalization of the trustee responsible for tax matters due to COVID-19. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the circumstances explained. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed contrary to the CBDT's circular increasing monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF paid after the due date. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services Private Limited case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's net profit margin was only 3.86% and the establishment charges used were reasonable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to disallow 10% of net profit was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to reconsider the matter after the assessee files the cash book and any other supporting evidence, and to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had already given relief to the assessee based on further verification.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23,82,000/- as unexplained cash deposit during demonetization was unjustified, given the consistent pattern of cash transactions. However, the disallowance of Rs. 3 Lakh on trip expenses was upheld in principle, with a partial relief granted.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were initiated after the AO had already conducted inquiries and was satisfied with the share capital details in the first round. Therefore, the subsequent assessment proceedings were considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should be decided along with the pending quantum appeal. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessees are to provide bank statements and confirmations of the two sisters, and the AO is to grant an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of cash deposits as being from business sales. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had examined the books of accounts, sales ledger, and financial statements, which explained the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed furnished replies and documents to the AO and CIT(A). The Rs. 1 Crore was a refund of security deposit, and no exempt income was earned, making the disallowance under Section 14A unsustainable. Both additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's net profit margin was only 3.86% and the establishment charges used were reasonable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to disallow 10% of net profit was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence before the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the documents filed before the Tribunal, it was deemed necessary to adjudicate the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises and conjectures. It found that the cash deposits were explained by regular cash sales, which were duly recorded in the books of accounts and VAT returns, and thus deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a further opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A) for the ends of justice. The issue is remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the unexplained share application money as income. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the investors.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessees are to provide bank statements and confirmations of the two sisters, and the AO is to grant an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the application for final approval was filed within the prescribed time limit of six months prior to the expiry of the provisional approval. The CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application as non-maintainable and cancelling the provisional approval.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily withdrew the claim and offered the income during assessment, it did not constitute concealment of particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make an addition for income other than what was the foundation for recording the reasons to believe, as per jurisdictional High Court decisions. Since the addition made was not in respect of the profits from derivative trading that formed the basis of reopening, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which prescribes a 27% limit, is not applicable to the assessee's case as the contribution was made to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and not a recognized provident fund. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)'s findings were based solely on the available record due to the assessee's failure to make submissions or provide documentary evidence. Considering the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised in the assessee's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 157 to 163/KOL/2023) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1056/KOL/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to file evidence and submissions, and can request admission of additional evidence. If additional evidence is admitted, the CIT(A) is directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide with a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored all issues raised in both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to file submissions and evidence, with the possibility of admitting additional evidence after a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the documentary evidence and statements provided by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its primary onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors, and the rationale for the share premium was adequately justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the CIT(Exemption) passed an ex-parte order without examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of applicability of the proviso to Section 2(15) had already been decided in favour of the assessee for the same assessment year by a Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction as it was prior to the effective date of the relevant notification. Consequently, the assessment order and all subsequent orders were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and that agricultural income was accepted in the previous year. The case was restored to the AO for fresh scrutiny considering the previous year's assessment.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case and file relevant evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order, which formed the basis for the AO's assessment, was quashed by the ITAT, the subsequent assessment order became void ab initio. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked analysis of facts and reasons for the conclusion. Therefore, the order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked analysis of facts and reasons for the conclusion. Therefore, the order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case and file relevant evidence.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case and file relevant evidence.