Loading ITAT cases…
256 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeals, considering the averments made in the condonation petitions. However, due to the assessee's consistent non-representation before the lower authorities, indicating a lackadaisical approach, the Tribunal was not inclined to grant further opportunities without conditions. In the interest of natural justice, the matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for AY 2011-12 to the Department within sixty days. The receipts for these payments were to be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that if these costs were not paid within the prescribed period, the orders of the CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to these directions.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Director appeared before the ITAT and explained that the non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to improper service of notices owing to a change of address. The correct address was provided to the ITAT. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to issue notices to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36. As a condition for this relief, the assessee is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Department within sixty days from the date of the order. Failure to pay this cost within the stipulated period will result in the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes subject to these directions.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had been non-responsive before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before the Tribunal, and in the interest of natural justice, it was appropriate to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case and produce evidence. Therefore, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Department within sixty days from the date of the order. The receipt of this cost was to be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. The Tribunal further stipulated that should the assessee fail to pay the cost within the prescribed period, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes subject to these directions. No specific finding was given on the grounds of appeal, as the matter was remanded.
The tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee another opportunity. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association, Gwalior, within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation related to the festive season and staff unavailability. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's counsel's argument that proper verification of the Income Tax Return (ITR) filing was required by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the AO had passed the order based on the finding that the acknowledgement number in the system appeared to be false, indicating no return was filed. The Ld. CIT(A) had also dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's alleged non-cooperation. However, the assessee had presented a copy of the ITR along with its acknowledgement before the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order after proper verification of the ITR and after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeals, considering the averments made in the condonation petitions. However, due to the assessee's consistent non-representation before the lower authorities, indicating a lackadaisical approach, the Tribunal was not inclined to grant further opportunities without conditions. In the interest of natural justice, the matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for AY 2011-12 to the Department within sixty days. The receipts for these payments were to be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that if these costs were not paid within the prescribed period, the orders of the CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to these directions.
The Tribunal found that a fresh verification by the Assessing Officer is necessary to examine the assessee's submission regarding the technical defect in its PAN status affecting the Section 80P deduction claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities concerning this issue and restored the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the unsecured loans were received from the assessee's holding and group companies through proper banking channels, were duly confirmed, and originated from the lenders' own funds. The Tribunal found the AO's action of treating these genuine transactions as accommodation entries to be infirm, as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions were proven.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Direct Taxes Professionals' Association within 60 days. Failure to pay the cost will result in the CIT(A)'s order being confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte, non-speaking order without adjudicating on merits, which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Relying on precedents, the ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A) must pass a reasoned order after considering all grounds. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the underlying order u/s 263 of the Act, and the consequential assessment order based on it, had already been quashed by the Tribunal in prior proceedings, the very foundation of the present appeal by the Revenue had been dislodged. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which granted partial relief, became infructuous and not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the I.T. Bar Association within 60 days.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was time-barred by 183 days, but condoned the delay after considering the assessee's petition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared on several previous hearing dates and also on the current date, despite sufficient opportunities. Considering this attitude as against the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The issue in the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax Authorities within sixty days from the date of the order. The receipt of payment was to be produced before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that if the cost was not paid within the prescribed period, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to these directions.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the submitted cash book and cash flow chart for verification. If the assessee's cash balance as of 01.11.2016 is found to exceed Rs. 18 lakh, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) shall be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the original appeal was filed in the name of a non-existent entity due to amalgamation and was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh appeal. The current appeal was filed within the extended period granted. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear and had also contested that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering their submissions. Acknowledging this procedural lapse and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee another opportunity to be heard and file submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and did not adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal, noting the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (Sections 91(2) and 91(3)), permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee retaining the liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if subsequent facts warrant a merits-based hearing.
The Tribunal found a clear violation of natural justice because the Assessing Officer's order was primarily based on an Investigation Wing report and statements that were not put across to the assessee for rebuttal. Therefore, the case is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to confront her with all material relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits in her bank accounts. Possession of cash is considered evidence of ownership, and the assessee did not provide a cogent explanation to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was unsustainable because no show-cause notice was issued as required by the proviso to Section 143 of the Act. Verification for such issues can only be done under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal ruled that the disallowance was unsustainable because the issue was debatable, especially since the CPC itself had partially allowed the club expenditure under Section 154. It emphasized that membership subscription is fundamental for incurring club expenditure.
The ITAT condoned the 230-day delay, finding sufficient and bona fide reasons. It noted the factual error by the CIT(A) in misidentifying the assessee's status and incorrectly discussing Section 80P. The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after rectifying the factual error and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the information furnished in the tax report regarding the refund of GST admitted by the authority concerned (₹5,74,70,370/-) was mistook and misunderstood by the CPC, Bangalore. The Tribunal noted that the tax auditors' report in Para 16a stated that the amount falling within the scope of Section 28 of the Act was Nil. Furthermore, the assessee stated that the goods and service tax was not routed through the profit and loss account. The Tribunal concluded that the CPC had mistaken the refund of GST as an item falling under Para 16a (qua items falling within the scope of Section 28). The Tribunal held that this was a factual mistake committed by the CPC during processing, which the CIT(A) failed to appreciate and rectify. Therefore, the Tribunal found the order passed by the CIT(A) to be incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the adjustment made to the tune of ₹3,09,80,426/-. The ratio decidendi is that a factual mistake in processing by the CPC, leading to an incorrect adjustment of carry-forward losses due to misinterpretation of tax audit report entries concerning GST refunds, should be rectified, and the CIT(A) has a duty to correct such errors.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. On the legal issue, the Tribunal held that since the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and the information regarding the unsecured loan was already examined by the AO, and the reasons recorded for reopening did not demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 after four years was invalid, citing the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the loans and advances, as well as the unsecured loan taken in the preceding assessment years, were accepted by the Revenue, and the interest paid was not disputed in earlier years, the same cannot be disputed in the current year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, adhering to CBDT guidelines. However, it granted the Revenue liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if, upon re-verification, the tax effect exceeds the prescribed limit or falls under specified exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC, Delhi was without jurisdiction because it was issued before the effective date of Section 151A of the Act. The assessment was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 could not be invoked for amounts received in preceding assessment years (₹1,33,00,000/-) based on jurisdictional High Court precedents. For the remaining ₹10,00,000/-, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and an addition merely for non-compliance with summons under Section 131 was unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the loans and advances, as well as the unsecured loan taken in the preceding assessment years, were accepted by the Revenue, and the interest paid was not disputed in earlier years, the same cannot be disputed in the current year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee, concerning the wrong assumption of jurisdiction by the NFAC under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act prior to March 29, 2022, was purely a legal issue that did not require further factual verification. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., the Tribunal admitted the additional ground for adjudication. Upon considering the facts and legal position, the Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings were taken by the NFAC by issuing notices on February 9, 2022, and March 17, 2022, and framing the assessment on March 23, 2022. Since Section 151A of the Act was notified only on March 29, 2022, the assumption of jurisdiction by the NFAC was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the NFAC was quashed. The appeals for both AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18 were allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the low tax effect, citing the CBDT instruction. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall and revival if a subsequent re-verification reveals the tax effect exceeds the limit or the case falls under an exception to the instruction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), confirming that the assessee had obtained the required approvals for registration under Section 12A and had filed Form 10B along with the return of income. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s finding of fact was on solid ground and required no interference, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided comprehensive explanations and supporting evidence in the paper book for all issues raised by the AO. It was found that TDS was correctly deducted and paid where applicable, and not deducted where there was no liability. Given that the matter pertained to a financial year (2010-11) over a decade old and evidence was before the lower authorities, the Tribunal deemed re-verification unnecessary and annulled the AO's order treating the assessee as in default.
Citing the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that appeals are deemed withdrawn upon declaration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for restoration under specific circumstances.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment, finding the reasons recorded by the AO to be vague, lacking specific details of transactions and persons, and based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed on the legal issue, rendering the Revenue's appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the reopening of assessment was quashed in a prior order for the same assessment year, the Revenue's appeal becomes infructuous. The basis of the assessment was demolished, rendering the appeal unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that in an unabated assessment year, additions can only be made on the basis of seized incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on post-search inquiries to make the addition of ₹2,15,00,000/-. The Tribunal found that the assessment year in question was unabated at the time of the search and that no incriminating material pertaining to the share capital was found during the search. Therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to make the addition. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra), which was followed by the CIT(A). No issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This restoration is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days and providing proof of payment to the AO; otherwise, the CIT(A)'s order will be confirmed.
The Tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide the required details in the specified format. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Department within 60 days, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed.
On the first issue concerning the disallowance of Rs. 1,55,710/- for cash expenses, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was ad-hoc and not permissible under the Income Tax Act. It noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) had made a specific identification of any bogus or non-verifiable expenses, and the disallowance was based on an arbitrary percentage. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1,55,710/- was deleted. On the second issue regarding the addition of Rs. 3,63,45,650/- for cash deposits, the Tribunal observed that while the assessee was granted opportunities, it failed to provide the necessary details, citing voluminous documentation. Recognizing the need for justice and to allow the assessee to substantiate its claim, the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee adequate opportunity. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to appear diligently.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on its own previous order for the assessee (AY 2004-05) and the Calcutta High Court's judgment in a sister concern's case, which established that depreciation could be claimed even if capitalized in books or if no business activity was observed, as long as the assets were owned and utilized for business. The Tribunal found the issue squarely covered in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) lacked documentation for a correct income determination. Considering the need for an in-depth examination of facts, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on precedents from the Calcutta High Court (in the assessee's own case) and other High Courts, which consistently held ESOP costs as allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. Noting the assessee's inconsistent claims before the AO and the ITAT, and the absence of any presentation before the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, advising the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice, granting the assessee an opportunity to rectify its callous attitude. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if the AO intended to adopt a higher value than the one presented in the registered valuer's report, it was necessary to refer the matter to the DVO for examination. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider objections regarding the reopening of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation of not receiving timely communication. The Tribunal found a contradiction between the AO's finding of admission of bogus entry and the assessee's denial. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO.