ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal held that while there was a substantial delay, justice should prevail over technicalities. It emphasized that denying a hearing on merits due to procedural lapses would cause irreparable injustice.

The Tribunal held that while there was a substantial delay, justice should prevail over technicalities. It emphasized that denying a hearing on merits due to procedural lapses would cause irreparable injustice.

The Tribunal held that while there was a substantial delay, justice should prevail over technicalities. It emphasized that denying a hearing on merits due to procedural lapses would cause irreparable injustice.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was deleted, the penalty proceedings became infructuous and unjustified. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to cancel the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the addition was confirmed due to the assessee's lack of proper representation before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal granted a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and set aside the CIT(Appeals) order, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The penalty appeal was also set aside as it was dependent on the quantum addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's inability to furnish relevant documents hindered proper adjudication. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee is given an opportunity to submit documents to substantiate the claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without examining the merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal noted that the search action was conducted on associated entities, and notice under Section 153A was issued to the assessee. However, for the AY 2015-16, the assessment had attained finality as there were no pending proceedings and the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. Therefore, in an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during the search. The Tribunal found that no incriminating material was found during the search concerning the unsecured loans. The AO's addition was based on audit reports, the return of income, and statements under Section 131, which were not considered incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which relied on the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2016-17, and the Revenue's appeal for that year was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of the assessee's sale proceeds from the ordinary course of business, supported by sales tallies and audited financial statements. The AO and CIT(A) failed to provide contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants, and genuineness of transactions. The mere non-appearance of directors for personal appearance before the AO, when all other evidence was provided, was not a sufficient ground for addition.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 67 should not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC, as it is a vested right and the provisions of the DTAA override Section 90. The Tribunal followed previous judicial pronouncements on the matter.

The Tribunal held that there was no legal bar to converting stock-in-trade into investment in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the conversion was not non-genuine, and the gains should be treated as capital gains, not business income.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration solely on the technical ground of missing clauses in the trust deed, when a resolution adopting them was passed and the trust was functioning regularly, was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established by the documents submitted by the assessee and the subscriber companies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing all necessary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO failed to conduct further verification, and thus the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was unabated at the time of search, the AO's jurisdiction was limited to additions based on incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal noted that the search action was conducted on associated entities, and notice under Section 153A was issued to the assessee. However, for the AY 2015-16, the assessment had attained finality as there were no pending proceedings and the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. Therefore, in an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during the search. The Tribunal found that no incriminating material was found during the search concerning the unsecured loans. The AO's addition was based on audit reports, the return of income, and statements under Section 131, which were not considered incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which relied on the decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2016-17, and the Revenue's appeal for that year was also dismissed.