ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the AO had exercised jurisdiction under the fourth proviso to Section 153A without meeting the necessary preconditions. Specifically, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the condition regarding escaped income in the form of an asset of Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied, as no undisclosed assets were discovered. For AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20, which were unabated assessments at the time of search, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials. The Tribunal noted that the AO's additions were based on information from audit reports and post-search statements of entry operators, but crucially, no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings concerning these unsecured loans. Therefore, the AO's jurisdiction was confined to making additions based on incriminating material seized during the search for unabated/completed assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, finding it detailed and reasoned, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the clerical mistake and the delay to be satisfactory. The delay was condoned, and the incorrect section was corrected.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the AO had exercised jurisdiction under the fourth proviso to Section 153A without meeting the necessary preconditions. Specifically, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the condition regarding escaped income in the form of an asset of Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied, as no undisclosed assets were discovered. For AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20, which were unabated assessments at the time of search, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials. The Tribunal noted that the AO's additions were based on information from audit reports and post-search statements of entry operators, but crucially, no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings concerning these unsecured loans. Therefore, the AO's jurisdiction was confined to making additions based on incriminating material seized during the search for unabated/completed assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, finding it detailed and reasoned, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies only to credits received in the relevant assessment year. Since the majority of the funds were received in prior years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.

The Tribunal, considering the interest of substantive justice, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was advised to avail of future hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that they were denied a reasonable opportunity and that the ex-parte order was passed without considering their submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts correctly and that the receipts were from the sale of cotton knitted fabrics. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the AO had exercised jurisdiction under the fourth proviso to Section 153A without meeting the necessary preconditions. Specifically, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the condition regarding escaped income in the form of an asset of Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied, as no undisclosed assets were discovered. For AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20, which were unabated assessments at the time of search, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials. The Tribunal noted that the AO's additions were based on information from audit reports and post-search statements of entry operators, but crucially, no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings concerning these unsecured loans. Therefore, the AO's jurisdiction was confined to making additions based on incriminating material seized during the search for unabated/completed assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, finding it detailed and reasoned, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the AO had exercised jurisdiction under the fourth proviso to Section 153A without meeting the necessary preconditions. Specifically, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the condition regarding escaped income in the form of an asset of Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied, as no undisclosed assets were discovered. For AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20, which were unabated assessments at the time of search, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials. The Tribunal noted that the AO's additions were based on information from audit reports and post-search statements of entry operators, but crucially, no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings concerning these unsecured loans. Therefore, the AO's jurisdiction was confined to making additions based on incriminating material seized during the search for unabated/completed assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, finding it detailed and reasoned, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was completed without considering any incriminating document. The notice under Section 153A was issued without considering any incriminating material, rendering it void ab initio and the assessment infructuous. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which clearly states that in the case of unabated/completed assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The Tribunal found that the addition of bogus LTCG was not based on any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Therefore, the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. The merit of the case was not pressed before the bench as arguments were confined to legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present all relevant materials to establish their case. The orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside, and the case was restored to the AO for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not imposable as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessed income and returned income were the same, and the AO did not record a specific finding of concealment in the assessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The CIT(A) had also allowed the appeal based on the fact that a sister concern was assessed without adverse inferences for the same assessment year.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of compliance and the reliance on orders from his mother's case without sufficient evidence. It was deemed appropriate to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination as the assessee could not properly represent its case earlier.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10IE, stating it was a procedural lapse that did not result in revenue loss. The assessee was directed to be granted the concessional tax rate benefit, subject to verification of other conditions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was bad in law. The AO did not verify the information or obtain a copy of the sale deed before issuing the notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10IE, stating it was a procedural lapse that did not result in revenue loss. The assessee was directed to be granted the concessional tax rate benefit, subject to verification of other conditions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause and allowed the submission of new documents. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the issue afresh in light of the newly submitted evidence, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.