Loading ITAT cases…
256 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment, holding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were 'scanty, vague and unambiguous' and demonstrated a 'gross non-application of mind'. The reasons lacked specific details of transactions, mode of payment, or the identity of parties, which is a prerequisite for valid reopening. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was permitted to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme outcome was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹25,56,00,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all necessary evidences to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the investors, and the genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not pointed out any specific defects or insufficiency in the documents provided by the assessee, even after remand proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the provisions requiring explanation of the 'source of source' and the addition of Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards and thus not relevant for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Orissa Corporation Ltd. and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which held that if the assessee discharges its initial burden, the non-compliance with summons by third parties is of little significance, especially when the AO has not conducted adequate independent inquiry. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be sustained merely on the ground of non-compliance with summons when the assessee had produced substantial documentary evidence. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the delay in depositing PF and ESI contributions was due to the non-functioning of banking portals on the due date (15.06.2021), leading to payment on the next day (16.06.2021). The Tribunal held this constituted a sufficient and bonafide reason, and the delay could not be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated after four years, they must satisfy the first proviso to Section 147. As the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) did not mention any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts, the reopening was invalid and illegal, following the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as such. However, it granted the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 participation proves unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed dispatched to a wrong email address. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (E) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the inventory addition, noting the AO's failure to provide reasons and applying the theory of telescoping from unexplained liabilities to assets. It also confirmed the deletion of additions for expenses and TDS, as they were based solely on the assessee's non-compliance, and the CIT(A) correctly granted the benefit of doubt.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on March 22, 2018, for AY 2011-12, were invalid and illegal. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on March 24, 2014. The reopening occurred after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded for reopening did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to truly and materially disclose any information during the original assessment proceedings, which resulted in the escapement of income. Therefore, the reopening was in violation of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108 (SC), which laid down that reassessment is invalid if not in consonance with the proviso to Section 147. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The issue in ITA No. 47/KOL/2024 for AY 2010-11 was similar, and the same decision was applied, leading to the allowance of that appeal as well.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a total voluntary disclosure of gross rental income of ₹1,80,00,000/- over the period from FY 2008-09 to FY 2014-15. The addition confirmed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15 was ₹74,70,721/-. The Tribunal found that the voluntary disclosure was sufficient to cover this addition by allowing the telescopic benefit to the assessee. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the principle that when the disclosure made is more than the actual rent received, considering the entire period, the assessee should be given the benefit of telescopic adjustment. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Indira Devi (supra), which held that the assessee should be given telescopic benefit out of the total disclosure of gross rental made, as the total disclosure was enough to cover the shortfall in the current year's rental income. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal was reasonable, and therefore, there was no delay in the filing of the appeal. Regarding the merit of the case, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities. Considering this against the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity for adjudication. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days from the date of the order. The receipt of payment was to be produced before the CIT(A) at the first hearing. The Tribunal further stipulated that if the costs were not paid within the prescribed period, the order of the CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes subject to these directions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the sale of gold coins and gold jewellery amounting to Rs. 1,01,96,578/-, the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal noted that sample bills were produced, and the assessee claimed sales to friends and relatives. The assessee was directed to produce the purchasers of the jewellery for examination and the AO was to verify previous years' bank accounts for any declared sale of gold jewellery in VDIS. For the sale of raw jute and jute bags (Rs. 4,00,000/-) and commission income (Rs. 14,99,929/-), the Tribunal observed a potential connection between the sale of jute bags and commission received from 'Rima Jute Bag, Purulia'. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the entire transaction, verify the details of sellers (whose names were not available), and examine the commission income by verifying transactions with the listed individuals. The assessee was granted liberty to produce all bills for jute/jute bag transactions. The AO was also to verify if service tax was paid on the commission income. The duty to produce documents to substantiate the claim was placed on the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that it is logical for the quantum and penalty appeals to be heard together to avoid contradiction. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to hear both appeals concurrently.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS process is not successful.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had taken the stand that advance tax had not been paid. While the assessee had submitted that they were not required to pay advance tax due to income exemption under Section 80P, the Tribunal decided not to go into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, and considering the assessee's request to file their explanation before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was at liberty to file all necessary documents in support of their claim. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's liberty to seek restoration if the application under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not accepted by the Department for any reason.
The Tribunal condoned the 17-day delay in filing the appeal. It deleted the addition of Rs. 1,01,80,075/- for low gross profit, ruling that the AO's rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) was illegal as no specific defects were pointed out. For the addition of Rs. 39,67,22,381/- as unexplained unsecured loans, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for proper re-verification of the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case. The AO was also directed to use his office to obtain relevant documents from the CBI if the assessee is unable to produce them.
The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural issues, including the unsigned adjournment application and the assessee's prior non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This restoration is subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable to Legal Aid Services within sixty days. The receipt of payment must be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. If the cost is not paid within the stipulated period, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) will stand confirmed. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 39-day delay in filing the appeal to ITAT, finding the reason for the delay genuine and bonafide. It remitted the case back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to pass an order after hearing the assessee and instructing the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal ruled that filing a form is a procedural matter and a technical error in citing the section should not be a ground for rejection. It remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the revised application made in the correct section and to pass a fresh order regarding registration.
The Tribunal noted that as per the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, appeals are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the Designated Authority. Since the assessee requested withdrawal and had opted for the scheme, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to rectify the error. The correct PAN number should be read as AADFK5925F, replacing the previously mentioned AADFK9525F, and this corrigendum will be part of the original order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable grounds for non-representation. Considering the circumstances, the appeal for ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024 was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on the assessee for the delay.
The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it failed to specify whether the scrutiny was limited, complete, or compulsory manual, violating CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II. Consequently, the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) was also rendered void ab initio and quashed, following precedents from co-ordinate benches and higher courts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable grounds for non-representation. Considering the circumstances, the appeal for ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024 was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on the assessee for the delay.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable grounds for non-representation. Considering the circumstances, the appeal for ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024 was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on the assessee for the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The assessee's representative prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal based on this development. The learned DR for the revenue did not oppose this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to get the appeal revived by filing a necessary miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 for any reason. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal for non-representation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted that they attempted to file details before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not due to technical glitches, and had intimated this to the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal without considering these submissions. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to a wrong email address by the Assessing Officer. Given these circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter required to be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal should not be dismissed for non-representation without a proper inquiry into the reasons for absence, especially when technical glitches or issues with communication are cited.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and was prevented from filing within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal set aside both the order of the CIT(A) and the AO, directing a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a significant delay and no condonation of delay was sought. Multiple adjournment requests were made, and there were discrepancies in the provided documentation, including a questioned signature on an adjournment application. Due to the unrectified defects and unexplained delay, the tribunal found no reason to grant further adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and was prevented from filing within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal set aside both the order of the CIT(A) and the AO, directing a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a necessary miscellaneous application if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 proves unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal observed that the appeal was against an order under Section 143(1) and issues could not be remanded for verification, as such verification is done under Section 143(3). Crucially, the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued without a show-cause notice, which is a requirement of the first proviso to Section 143. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the intimation under Section 143(1) unsustainable and deleted the addition made.
The Tribunal held that the time limitation for filing the application under Section 80G(5) should be treated as directory, not mandatory. The case was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the Form 10AB filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons genuine. The case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to hear the assessee and consider the documents. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A), restoring the case to the AO for a fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after proper verification of documents, and the assessee is instructed to cooperate and furnish all necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10IC is procedural in nature and cannot disentitle the assessee from opting for the new tax regime if it has been claimed in the return. The error in filing the form was considered an inadvertent procedural error.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after hearing the assessee.
The assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal. The assessee's counsel submitted that a subsequent order by the CIT(A) allowed relief by deleting additions in the original assessment order, rendering the present appeal challenging the tax rate modification infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not properly examine the assessee's replies and evidence before concluding that the AO's order was erroneous. The PCIT's general observation of lack of inquiry was not sufficient to set aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal determined that the appeal's tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which falls below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, concluding it was contrary to the Department's policy. The Revenue was granted the liberty to apply for a recall of the order if the tax effect was later found to be higher.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the issue of admitting fresh evidence, while not explicitly addressed as a separate point, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had given detailed findings of fact based on the documents provided by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee acted as a CSP agent for the State Bank of India through Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The credits in the assessee's account were from Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and the withdrawals were made on behalf of the bank for customer transactions. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO incorrectly treated these withdrawals as unexplained money under Section 69A, as the source of money was not disputed and the withdrawals were handled as per the bank's directions. Consequently, the addition of ₹1,93,26,069/- as unexplained money and ₹1,90,269/- as contractual receipt was not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Given the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A) due to a change in counsel, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of loan creditors, ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The CIT(A)'s order was considered in line with the evidence presented, and the revenue's appeal was not found to have sufficient grounds for interference.
The Tribunal noted that if the company was indeed struck off before the Section 148 notice, the assessment proceedings would be invalid. The quantum assessment appeals (ITA Nos. 783 & 784/KOL/2024) were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to verify this fresh evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 781 & 782/KOL/2024) were allowed as they abated due to the restoration of the quantum matters.
The Tribunal noted that if the company was indeed struck off before the Section 148 notice, the assessment proceedings would be invalid. The quantum assessment appeals (ITA Nos. 783 & 784/KOL/2024) were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to verify this fresh evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 781 & 782/KOL/2024) were allowed as they abated due to the restoration of the quantum matters.