ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B) before one month from the due date of filing the return of income is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Sections 11 & 12. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption even if filed at a later stage.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of over 22 months, considering the pandemic and lockdown as sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 68 and 69C. It was held that the transactions were pre-arranged accommodation entries for bogus long-term capital gains, and the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, as required by Section 68. The reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was also found to be valid.

The Tribunal set aside the learned CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing. It directed the learned CIT(Appeals) to grant another opportunity to the assessee, cautioning the assessee to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) may pass an order based on available records.

The ITAT found that the 12-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was due to the negligence of the assessee's former advocate and not due to the assessee's own negligence. The ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned appellate order from NFAC was a duplication of the earlier order passed by the CIT(Appeals). Due to miscommunication, the NFAC passed the order erroneously. Therefore, the assessment order passed by NFAC was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was due to COVID-19 pandemic and acute illness of family members of the assessee. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material was found in the possession of a third party, proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were applicable, not Section 147. The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was therefore void ab initio.

The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to the delay, finding that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for condonation. The Tribunal, however, found that the delay occurred due to wrong advice from the authorized representative and condoned the delay.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide complete details of the shell company and the transaction date. In the absence of primary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was without proper appreciation of facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any valid explanation for the cash deposits in the bank account despite ample opportunities. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately examine the assessee's claim that the shares were sold at a negotiated price under pressure from a Joint Lenders' Forum, and failed to consider the applicability of SEBI regulations to such off-market bulk transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication after a thorough examination of facts and the relevant legal framework, including a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a deceased person, who had died before the notice was issued. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, override the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, it is binding on all stakeholders, including tax authorities, and all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Consequently, any proceedings initiated or continued against the corporate debtor for liabilities arising before the CIRP are prohibited.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act. Since the resolution plan was approved, all prior claims and proceedings against the corporate debtor are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not be continued.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act. Once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, it becomes binding on all parties, including tax authorities. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be initiated or continued for dues relating to the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that as per the IBC, once a resolution plan is approved, all prior claims and proceedings against the corporate debtor are extinguished. Therefore, the pending appeals before the Tribunal were rendered infructuous and were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal on a technical ground, especially since the assessment order was ex parte. The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to revive it if not successful under the VSVS Scheme.

The Tribunal observed that the AO passed the order without the assessee's presence and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a decision on merits due to non-compliance. To provide an opportunity to the assessee, the appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural irregularity and not a mandatory condition, citing previous pronouncements. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide a cogent reason for estimating the net profit at 1.1%. Considering the assessee's willingness to accept a 0.6% net profit and to avoid further litigation, the Tribunal found it proper to restrict the net profit estimation to 0.6%.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) passed the order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principle of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide a cogent reason for estimating the net profit at 1.1% and the CIT(A) upheld this without independent analysis. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the net profit estimation to 0.6% of the turnover.

The Tribunal considered the submission and the lack of opposition from the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to revive it if unsuccessful under the VSVS Scheme.

The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, confirming the AO's order without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard, as the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-receipt of notice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's status should remain a Cooperative Society, as established in previous assessment years and confirmed by the High Court, thus rendering DDT under Section 115-O inapplicable. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS-related issues, employees' provident fund contributions, and provisions on standard assets were largely remitted back to the AO for verification and relief where payments were made within grace periods or deductions were allowable. Duplicate additions for provision for income tax and certain donations/subscriptions were directed to be deleted if already included by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the change in the assessee's status from a cooperative society to a banking company was not justified, restoring its status as a cooperative society. Consequently, the dividend distribution tax was not applicable. Several grounds related to disallowances of expenses were either set aside and remitted for verification, partly allowed, or confirmed based on the facts and evidence presented.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals partly for statistical purposes. Key decisions included restoring the assessee's status as a cooperative society, allowing deductions for employee PF contributions deposited within the grace period, and remitting certain disallowances to the AO for verification. Some grounds were dismissed due to lack of evidence or being time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that the right of cross-examination is not an absolute right and depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, it was held that the AO can gather information in any manner and utilize it if there is material to base the assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not perused the required evidence and had considered evidence selectively. The issue of non-disposal of Ground No. 2 by the Ld. AO was also noted.

The tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to pass an afresh order after obtaining a report from the DVO regarding the difference in purchase stamp value, thereby setting aside the earlier orders of the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the excise duty ought to have been excluded in the calculation of turnover for determining the applicable tax rate. Citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that excise duty cannot form part of the total turnover. Consequently, the assessee's turnover was below Rs. 250 crores, qualifying for the 25% tax rate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's explanation about the non-service of notices and the shift in address. The Tribunal observed that the assessment was done ex-parte without proper adjudication on merits and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a perusal of the satisfaction note and the CIT(A)'s order confirmed that no incriminating material was found for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, no assessment u/s 153C could be made.

The ITAT found the reasons for the delay genuine and bonafide, citing Supreme Court judgments on the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, and restored the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while accepting a revised return was permissible, the CIT(A) did not have the power to direct a fresh assessment under Section 251 of the Act. A subsequent order by the Coordinate Bench quashed the CIT(A)'s initial order.

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of both the AO's assessment and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeal on limitation, and citing precedents on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring justice for the assessee.

The ITAT found the reasons for delay, as explained in the assessee's affidavit (office shift, unserved notices, belated discovery of order in spam), to be genuine and bonafide. Citing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay of 5174 days, finding the reasons to be bonafide, genuine, and sufficient, citing Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the cause of delay over its length. Additional evidences were admitted and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Following the Supreme Court decision in Caraf Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The enhancement by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that there was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the official who provided the adverse information from NMCE. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.