ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2025

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 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal. This revival would be possible by filing a miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 for any reason whatsoever.

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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, confirming that the assessee successfully discharged its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by furnishing sufficient documents. It reiterated that the amendments introducing the proviso to Section 68 and Section 56(2)(viib) are prospective from 01.04.2013 and therefore not applicable to AY 2008-09.

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 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 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 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS process is not successful.

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 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 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 acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee retaining the liberty to apply for restoration if the Vivad-se-Vishwas application is rejected.

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 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 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 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 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 condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, directing a fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

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 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 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.

For the quantum appeal (ITA 1409), the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, finding reasonable cause for non-representation but imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for wasting departmental time. The penalty under Section 270A (ITA 1410) was dismissed as its foundation ceased to exist with the restoration of the quantum appeal. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) (ITA 1411) was deleted, acknowledging reasonable cause for non-representation.

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 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 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 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 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 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 restored the issue in ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard. Penalties levied under Section 270A and Section 272A(1)(d) in ITA Nos. 1410/Kol/2024 and 1411/Kol/2024 respectively were dismissed/deleted, with liberty to reinitiate penalty proceedings if additions are made during reassessment.

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 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 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 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 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's election to proceed under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted the liberty to apply for the appeal's restoration if, for any reason, the application under the scheme is not accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal restored the issues raised in ITA Nos. 783 & 784/Kol/2024 to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after examining whether the assessee was struck off before the notice u/s 148 was issued. The penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 781 & 782/Kol/2024) were allowed as the quantum proceedings were abated.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. Reviewing the affidavits, the Tribunal found valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), including the death of the director and communication issues. The ITAT ruled that appeals should be decided on merits, not in limine, and thus set aside the CIT(A) orders, remitting the cases back for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee was struck off from the Registrar of Companies before the notice under Section 148 was issued, the assessment proceedings would be invalid. Consequently, the appeals related to the penalty proceedings were allowed as the quantum appeals were being restored for re-adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including PANs, bank statements, audited accounts, and justification for the funds (property purchase, bank loan margin money), to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) had cryptically upheld the addition without proper consideration of the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹69 lacs.