Loading ITAT cases…
207 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It was held that, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which applies retrospectively, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the Ld. AO's addition could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of liquor, with purchases from the state government corporation amounting to ₹12,70,62,216/- and total sales of ₹12,96,75,358/-. Additionally, commission and brokerage income of ₹12,88,637/- was reported. The Ld. AO aggregated these amounts to ₹1,37,27,832/- and applied a 10% net profit, resulting in an estimated profit of ₹1,30,72,783/-. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's net profit margin historically ranged from 2.24% to 2.82% in previous assessment years, with a net profit of 2.40% in the preceding year. The judgment explicitly states that for best judgment assessment, the AO must rely on comparable cases, not conjecture. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the facts on record. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Ld. AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 22.02.2019 was not in conformity with the formats prescribed by CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The Tribunal noted that paragraph 3 of the instruction clearly stated that all notices under Section 143(2) shall henceforth be issued in these revised formats only. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the notice was defective. Consequently, the assessment framed on the basis of this invalid notice was also held to be invalid, and so were the revisionary proceedings based on such an assessment. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of co-ordinate benches in Srimanta Kumar Shit Vs. ACIT and Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO, which held that notices not conforming to CBDT instructions render the assessment invalid. The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the other issues on merit as they became academic. The appeal of the assessee was allowed by quashing the order passed under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT was not sustainable on the first issue concerning the excess claim of depreciation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had added plant and machinery in the preceding assessment year, which was put to use for less than 180 days. This addition was eligible for 80% normal depreciation and 20% additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia). Since only 50% was claimed in the preceding year, the remaining 50% (40% normal + 10% additional) was claimed in the current year. The Tribunal found no anomaly or mistake in this claim, concluding that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue on this count. Therefore, the revisionary jurisdiction on this issue was quashed. However, on the second issue regarding the claim of excess brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the Tribunal found that the PCIT had not examined the issue with reference to the various orders passed by the AO determining these amounts. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the revisionary order on this issue and directed the AO to verify the amount of brought forward unabsorbed loss/depreciation and allow the correct amounts as per the AO's orders giving appeal effect to appellate orders.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and application dated December 19, 2024, requesting to withdraw the present appeal. The assessee's counsel stated that the appeal had become infructuous because a prior appeal against the original return for the same assessment year (AY 2019-20) had already been adjudicated in the assessee's favour by the Hon'ble SMC Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No. 568/K01/2024, vide order dated July 22, 2024. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1254/KOL/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn, as it had become infructuous. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that for unabated assessments under Section 153A, no additions can be made unless based on incriminating material found during the search, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, applying a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders, directing the Ld. AO to allow the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, citing its own consistent decisions in the assessee's prior assessment years.
The Tribunal determined that the AO's method of adding the peak credit on a single day was an unreasonable mechanism for estimating income from accommodation entries. Instead, the Tribunal directed the AO to make additions based on a 0.2% commission rate on the total deposits in the undisclosed bank accounts, reflecting the assessee's typical brokerage charges. For AY 2010-11, ₹29,158/- was sustained and ₹35,12,359/- deleted; for AY 2011-12, ₹95,304/- was sustained and ₹71,60,280/- deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, applying a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders, directing the Ld. AO to allow the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, citing its own consistent decisions in the assessee's prior assessment years.
The Tribunal determined that the AO's method of adding the peak credit on a single day was an unreasonable mechanism for estimating income from accommodation entries. Instead, the Tribunal directed the AO to make additions based on a 0.2% commission rate on the total deposits in the undisclosed bank accounts, reflecting the assessee's typical brokerage charges. For AY 2010-11, ₹29,158/- was sustained and ₹35,12,359/- deleted; for AY 2011-12, ₹95,304/- was sustained and ₹71,60,280/- deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, applying a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders, directing the Ld. AO to allow the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, citing its own consistent decisions in the assessee's prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits, as the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any independent inquiry or apply his mind to the information available, relying solely on unverified information. The AO proceeded on suspicion rather than a belief that income had escaped assessment, despite the assessee having provided full details earlier. Consequently, both the reopening and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s view was incorrect, as the credit for TDS and advance tax of the amalgamating company ought to have been allowed to the amalgamated company. Since the amalgamating company no longer existed and its assets and liabilities were taken over, the credit must be allowed to the amalgamated company.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by focusing solely on the procedural non-compliance of not filing Form 68, while the assessee had substantively complied with the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not specified the clause for misreporting of income under Section 270A(9).
The Tribunal ruled that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v), enabling prima facie disallowance of Section 80P deduction for belated returns, was effective from Assessment Year 2021-22, not 2018-19. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, such a disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not permissible, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not determine the quantum of advance tax payable or the applicability of Section 208. It noted the assessee's claim that no advance tax was due. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file an advance tax exemption application and present further evidence after being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the earlier registration granted on 07.04.2022 was a regular/final registration, not provisional. The confusion arose from the heading in Form 10AC. The Tribunal clarified that as per CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2022, provisional registration should be construed as regular registration, making the assessee's subsequent appeal for final registration infructuous.
The Tribunal determined that the assessee's registration granted on 28.05.2021 under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was a final/regular registration, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2022. Consequently, the assessee's subsequent application for final registration was unnecessary and its appeal against the CIT's rejection was not maintainable. The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after noting a CBDT Circular (No. 11 of 2022) clarified that "provisional registration" orders issued due to technical glitches in Form 10AC for existing trusts should be considered "regular registration." Consequently, the assessee already had final registration, making their subsequent appeal for "final registration" infructuous and not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's lack of appearance before the lower authorities and the significant delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the assessee's own negligence in pursuing the matter with various counsels, did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee the liberty to revive it by filing a necessary miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 application is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, it granted the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a necessary miscellaneous application if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS-24) is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal, relying on CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2022, determined that the assessee's initial registration was a final/regular registration. Consequently, the assessee's subsequent application for "final" registration and the corresponding appeal were deemed infructuous and not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The dismissal does not affect the validity of the existing regular registration.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee if the income is assessable in her hands, even if the TDS certificate is in the name of her deceased husband. The assessee is entitled to claim the TDS credit as she has offered the corresponding income for taxation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by law, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal observed the assessee's failure to present documents to lower authorities but accepted additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication with directions for the assessee to provide all necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA Nos. 2287 & 2288/Kol/2025, the issues were restored to the file of the PCIT for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 per assessment year. For ITA Nos. 1531 & 1532/Kol/2025, the appeals were allowed, quashing the assessment orders.
The Tribunal condoned the 52-day delay, finding it bonafide. Recognizing that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication to ensure justice, thus allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit on the unaccounted cash transactions based on the assessee's declared GP rate, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal and partly confirming the addition.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's business activities, including sales made on his own behalf and commission earned as an agent. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection orders were unsustainable as the assessee already possessed valid registrations for AY 2024-25. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the existing registrations and allow them to continue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal noted that the grounds for filing the appeal were not valid based on the circular.
The Tribunal held that taxing the same income twice is not permissible. Since the assessee had already disclosed and paid taxes on the cash deposit as income, a subsequent addition under Section 69A for the same amount was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to pass a speaking order on merits, considering the grounds raised and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without examining the merits is not permissible under the law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department did not oppose the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's submission of an affidavit explaining the inability to file documents earlier due to unavoidable reasons, decided to grant a fresh opportunity. It set aside the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after carefully scrutinizing the new documentary evidence to be submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an ACIT who did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Circular No. 1/2011. This procedural lapse rendered the assessment proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment, additions can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. Since no such materials were found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the payment could not be treated as bogus solely because the recipient had not filed a return of income, especially when the assessee provided all necessary details and had a history of payments to the contractor.
The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment, additions can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. Since no such materials were found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per Section 153 of the Act. The assessment orders passed were quashed due to the expiry of the prescribed time limits for completion.
The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal and noted the assessee's contention that financers, being regular assessees, might have included the interest income in their returns. Applying the 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the AO and CIT(A), remanding the matter for a de novo assessment to allow the assessee to furnish necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits is not justified. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid and void ab initio as it was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the AO. The assessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits is not justified. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay but held that the appeal was filed contrary to the CBDT's policy decision on monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits is not justified. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate their case. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the AO had made additions based on misunderstandings and factually incorrect information. The CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the additions after a detailed examination, was upheld.