Loading ITAT cases…
226 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ex parte decision was due to non-prosecution by the assessee. In the interest of justice, and considering the request for an opportunity to present evidence regarding sundry creditors, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it violated the proviso to Section 147, specifically because no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was established after four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it violated the proviso to Section 147, specifically because no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was established after four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 144-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. It observed that the case was decided ex-parte by the lower authorities, and in the interest of justice and fair play, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that both lower authorities decided the matter ex parte. Considering that the addition under Section 68 involves primary evidence verification, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claim. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This remand is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of ₹1 Lakh to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within 60 days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would stand confirmed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act is unjustified and illegal and accordingly deleted the same. The reasoning was based on the fact that the loan of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- from M/s Victor Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. was repaid in subsequent years, as evidenced by a chart provided by the assessee and bank statements. The loan was received via account payee cheques, interest was paid with TDS deducted, the lenders were regular income tax assessees with PANs on record, and the lenders had sufficient balance in their accounts. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's arguments, particularly referencing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO Vs Kayathwal Estate(P) Ltd. This decision held that if an assessee has disclosed fully and truly material facts with respect to a loan transaction, including repayment with interest and TDS, and the AO accepted the transaction during scrutiny assessment, then reopening after four years is unjustified if the conditions precedent for exercising power under Section 147 are not satisfied. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made without jurisdiction and was invalid. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS) 139/Kol/2024 succeeded on legal grounds as well as on merits. The same findings were applied mutatis mutandis to IT(SS)A No.140/Kol/2024. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay, finding the assessee's explanation credible and emphasizing that technicality should not outweigh substantial justice. It remanded the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing them to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim'.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted new documents during the appeal that were not presented before the AO or CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide all supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay, finding the assessee's explanation credible and emphasizing that technicality should not outweigh substantial justice. It remanded the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing them to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim'.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under section 148 did not mention the mandatory sanction obtained under section 151, indicating a lack of application of mind. The reasons recorded were also found to be vague and based on suspicion rather than a belief of escaped income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's medical conditions and lack of proper notice as sufficient cause. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay, finding the assessee's explanation credible and emphasizing that technicality should not outweigh substantial justice. It remanded the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing them to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim'.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it violated the proviso to Section 147, specifically because no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was established after four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay, finding the assessee's explanation credible and emphasizing that technicality should not outweigh substantial justice. It remanded the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing them to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim'.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) and the notice for reopening under Section 148 was issued after more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Crucially, the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction or finding that the assessee failed to disclose any information truly and materially in the return of income or during the assessment proceedings. This failure to meet the conditions of the proviso to Section 147 renders the reopening unsustainable, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. Consequently, the assessee's ground challenging the reopening was allowed, and the cross objection was allowed. The Revenue's appeal on merit was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the addition of interest expenses. The Tribunal found that the AO relied on third-party statements and the Investigation Wing's database without proper substantiation, failed to provide the statements for cross-examination, and did not establish the genuineness of the transactions or circularity. The Tribunal followed its decision in a similar issue for AY 2015-16, deleting the addition. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross objections were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act is unjustified and illegal and accordingly deleted the same. The reasoning was based on the fact that the loan of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- from M/s Victor Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. was repaid in subsequent years, as evidenced by a chart provided by the assessee and bank statements. The loan was received via account payee cheques, interest was paid with TDS deducted, the lenders were regular income tax assessees with PANs on record, and the lenders had sufficient balance in their accounts. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's arguments, particularly referencing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO Vs Kayathwal Estate(P) Ltd. This decision held that if an assessee has disclosed fully and truly material facts with respect to a loan transaction, including repayment with interest and TDS, and the AO accepted the transaction during scrutiny assessment, then reopening after four years is unjustified if the conditions precedent for exercising power under Section 147 are not satisfied. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made without jurisdiction and was invalid. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS) 139/Kol/2024 succeeded on legal grounds as well as on merits. The same findings were applied mutatis mutandis to IT(SS)A No.140/Kol/2024. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.
The CIT(Appeals) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, acknowledging the fresh evidence submitted. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, noting that while the submission of fresh evidence to the CIT(Appeals) violates Rule 46A, the CIT(Appeals)'s action of restoring the case to the AO was appropriate and in the right perspective.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of retracted statements recorded under Section 133A, as they have weak evidentiary value without corroboration. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement recorded under Section 133A, as it has weak evidentiary value without corroboration. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were repaid and the lenders had sufficient funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Acknowledging the assessee's genuine unawareness of the new law and the incorrect application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(i), the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration and to pass a speaking order after reviewing all facts and documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search for the unabated assessment year, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The seized documents were considered part of regular accounting records and not incriminating material.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the facts and circumstances. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO, subject to the assessee paying ₹10,000 to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search for the unabated assessment year, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The seized documents were considered part of regular accounting records and not incriminating material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search for the unabated assessment year, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The seized documents were considered part of regular accounting records and not incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on an ad-hoc basis under Section 69C cannot be sustained solely on the ground that vehicles were not appearing in the 'VAHAN' portal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a government contractor for transporting goods and hires trucks from truck unions. The assessee provided confirmations of goods received and transport gate passes with truck numbers. The Tribunal found that the non-updating of data in the 'VAHAN' portal is not the fault of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mahajan Fabrics (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, which held that refund claims cannot be denied on grounds of incomplete vehicle details if other necessary information is provided. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3), which is mandatory for estimating income or expenses. The Tribunal also found the basis of estimation to be unfair and fallacious. Regarding the alternative disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) by the CIT(A), the Tribunal held that it was an error as it is not applicable in cases of estimation of income and that individual payments were below the TDS threshold. Considering the net profit declared by the assessee (1.09%) and in previous years (3.52% and 0.84%), the Tribunal calculated an average NP of 2.75%. The Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition at the rate of 2% of the total lorry expenses (Rs. 11,01,641/-) and delete the remaining amount of Rs. 4,64,90,566/-. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search for the unabated assessment year, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The seized documents were considered part of regular accounting records and not incriminating material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search for the unabated assessment year, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The seized documents were considered part of regular accounting records and not incriminating material.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's arguments, noting that the intention of Section 40A(3) is to check unaccounted money and not to restrict business activities. It emphasized that Section 40A(3) should be read in conjunction with Rule 6DD. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO, the Tribunal highlighted that Section 40A(3) is not absolute and considerations of business expediency are not excluded, especially when Rule 6DD provides exceptions. The Tribunal also referred to the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. CPL Tannery, which held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not justified if the genuineness of the transaction is not doubted and Rule 6DD is considered for exceptions based on commercial expediency. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was uncalled for.
Noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance before the lower authorities, the ITAT remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with specific directions for the assessee to produce documents and persons for examination. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the assessee for wasting departmental resources.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Acknowledging the assessee's genuine unawareness of the new law and the incorrect application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(i), the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration and to pass a speaking order after reviewing all facts and documents.
The Tribunal held that due to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, which has an overriding effect, the appeals could not continue. The resolution applicant starts with a clean slate, and all litigations come to a stop, making the appeals infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2016-17 was unabated and completed before the search on February 10, 2021. The time period for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired on September 30, 2017. In such a scenario, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A is limited to making additions based on seized incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that it is a settled position of law that in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. Following the decision in Exhibit India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT vs. M/s Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessment order under Section 153A was bad in law. The addition of Rs. 16,62,829/- (and Rs. 2,73,603/- in the other appeal, as per the cited case) was deleted. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. For the Section 68 addition, it ruled that once the assessee provides evidence of loan repayment, it cannot be added, citing precedents. For the rental income addition, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO's figure was incorrect, as actual gross rent was verifiable from Form 26AS.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search for the unabated assessment year, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The seized documents were considered part of regular accounting records and not incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the income surrendered during the survey was voluntarily disclosed in the original return under Section 139(1) and accepted by the Department. It clarified that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) applies only to search cases, not surveys, and relied on the Calcutta High Court precedent that no penalty is leviable in such circumstances.
The ITAT noted that Form 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not allowed to the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, providing an opportunity for hearing and for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as it was for bonafide and genuine reasons. The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits, which violates Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the 80G application under an erroneous presumption, despite the 12A application being pending. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not decided on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. With no objection from the DR, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate in the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148A(d) was issued beyond the time limit prescribed, making it time-barred and invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated are void ab initio, and the additions made have no legal basis.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee and not on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed without considering the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO before making the addition under Section 50C.
The Tribunal, relying on a precedent (Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO), held that the notification enabling faceless assessments under Section 151A came into effect on 29.03.2022. As the notices for reassessment (Section 142(1) and show-cause notice) were issued prior to this date, they were deemed invalid and without jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent assessment order null and void.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's arguments, noting that the intention of Section 40A(3) is to check unaccounted money and not to restrict business activities. It emphasized that Section 40A(3) should be read in conjunction with Rule 6DD. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO, the Tribunal highlighted that Section 40A(3) is not absolute and considerations of business expediency are not excluded, especially when Rule 6DD provides exceptions. The Tribunal also referred to the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. CPL Tannery, which held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not justified if the genuineness of the transaction is not doubted and Rule 6DD is considered for exceptions based on commercial expediency. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was uncalled for.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(E) erred by focusing on ancillary clauses and overlooking the dominant charitable objectives of the trust. It held that the scope of inquiry at the registration stage (Section 12AB) is limited to verifying the charitable nature of objects, not the genuineness of activities or application of income. The Tribunal set aside both rejection orders and remitted the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to grant the registrations.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was wrongly invoked as the cash was from recorded business sales. It also noted that the addition amounted to double taxation, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not sufficiently demonstrated the applicability of PSM for unique intangibles or inter-related transactions. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal noted that the receivables pertained to a period before the significant impact of the COVID pandemic. Consequently, both issues were remanded back to the AO/TPO for re-examination.