Loading ITAT cases…
226 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that while the Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant company to the transactions and the reliance on the 'flagship company' status, the matter required further examination. The Tribunal observed that the seized documents mentioned recipients like 'DNK HL Loharuka and others' and payments to 'HL Loharuka etc.', indicating potential transactions within the Loharuka Group. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the company's name was not explicitly mentioned, and the concerned persons denied transactions with the company, attributing them to individuals Anil Loharuka and Sunil Loharuka. However, it also acknowledged that these individuals are key persons of the company, and non-mention of a legal entity's name does not fully absolve it. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted that the amount was disclosed by persons from whom documents were seized, but the exact amount admitted in their returns was not worked out. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed a remand. The AO is to work out and quantify the amounts in the seized documents, ascertain which persons from the Disha Group or Shri Kotgire and his employees disclosed these transactions in their income returns, and consider the explanation of the diary owners. The assessee must produce evidence to support claims that transactions were owned up by others or pertain to other group concerns. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant company to the transactions and the reliance on the 'flagship company' status, the matter required further examination. The Tribunal observed that the seized documents mentioned recipients like 'DNK HL Loharuka and others' and payments to 'HL Loharuka etc.', indicating potential transactions within the Loharuka Group. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the company's name was not explicitly mentioned, and the concerned persons denied transactions with the company, attributing them to individuals Anil Loharuka and Sunil Loharuka. However, it also acknowledged that these individuals are key persons of the company, and non-mention of a legal entity's name does not fully absolve it. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted that the amount was disclosed by persons from whom documents were seized, but the exact amount admitted in their returns was not worked out. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed a remand. The AO is to work out and quantify the amounts in the seized documents, ascertain which persons from the Disha Group or Shri Kotgire and his employees disclosed these transactions in their income returns, and consider the explanation of the diary owners. The assessee must produce evidence to support claims that transactions were owned up by others or pertain to other group concerns. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee, being a purely legal issue with all necessary facts available, was admissible for adjudication, citing decisions of the Apex Court and the Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 143(2) dated 24.09.2018 did not specify whether it was a limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny, thus violating the CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The Tribunal emphasized that revenue authorities must follow CBDT instructions, and violations render the notice and consequential proceedings invalid. The Tribunal relied on the co-ordinate bench decision in Tapas Kumar Das vs. ITO, which held similar notices to be invalid and the consequent assessment void ab initio. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order and allowed the appeal on this legal issue. Other grounds on merit were left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of ₹3,04,06,000/-. It noted that the assessee runs a business of trading in tiles and bath fittings and made detailed submissions before the AO, including month-wise statements of cash deposited and cash sales. The CIT(A) observed that the cash deposit was 34.03% of the turnover, which was not abnormal considering preceding and succeeding years. The CIT(A) found that the details required by the AO were furnished, along with an audit report, bank account, and sales details, and the AO did not point out any deficiencies. Therefore, treating the cash deposits as unexplained was incorrect, and the evidence proved they were out of sale proceeds. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition of ₹26,00,000/-. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee explained the source of investment as withdrawals from his proprietary concern, M/s Sanjay Agencies, and submitted supporting documents like passbooks, withdrawals, capital account, and bank statements. The CIT(A) found no discrepancy. Regarding the admission of evidence, the Tribunal held that the documents were filed at the instance of the CIT(A) and not suo motu, thus not violating Rule 46A. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Improve Financial Consultants Private Limited, which held that such evidence, even if not considered by the lower appellate authority, can be considered by the Tribunal, and that it pertains to a question of fact. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, and thus the addition was unjustified. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(a) of the IT Act.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, and thus the addition was unjustified. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(a) of the IT Act.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, and thus the addition was unjustified. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(a) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of share capital and premium. However, to ensure substantive justice, the matter was remanded for further examination.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, and thus the addition was unjustified. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(a) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax remission received by the assessee was in the nature of a capital receipt, not liable to tax under normal provisions or for book profit computation under Section 115JB. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of share capital and premium. However, to ensure substantive justice, the matter was remanded for further examination.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal by considering additional evidence and a remand report, deleting all additions related to Section 80P, Section 69A, and the provision for overdue interest. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in allowing additional evidence after a remand report or in the deletion of the disputed additions, as the assessee's records were found to be in order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing all necessary documentation to prove the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal noted that the loans were repaid and relied on High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal ruled that the addition was unjustified, emphasizing that the assessee's books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3). It held that purchases cannot be entirely disallowed solely due to third-party non-compliance or cancelled GST registrations when sales are accepted and payments were made through banking channels.
The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) did not definitively establish the year of transfer, denied indexation benefit despite evidence of purchase deeds, and did not correctly classify the profit from the sale of constructed assets (business income vs. capital gains). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh determination of the year of transfer, allowance of indexation, cost of acquisition, and appropriate characterization of income.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to furnish proper documentary evidence to substantiate claims before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate afresh after providing the assessee ample opportunity to submit all necessary explanations and documents, including new evidence under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, especially given that the loans were fully repaid. Citing various High Court judgments, including the Gujarat High Court in Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that once repayment is established with documentary evidence, the addition under Section 68 cannot stand. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is null and void. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that no search was conducted on the assessee's premises. Although the warrant of authorization was issued in the assessee's name, and the assessee's name was mentioned in the Panchnama, the actual search was conducted at premises in Kolkata which did not belong to the assessee, and the assessee's business premises at Asansol were not searched. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in Room Alankar Vs. DCIT, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. J.M. Trading Corpn. The Tribunal reasoned that the 'conduct' of a search requires the authorized officer to carry out specific acts and deeds at the premises of the assessee, and a search is an invasion of privacy that must be carried out within the framework of the Act. Since no search was conducted against the assessee, the notice issued under section 153A was baseless, and the period of operation for section 153A could not be determined. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel them. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked the inherent jurisdiction to pass the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which stipulates that in metro cities, assessments for corporate returns with declared income above ₹330 lacs should be framed by the AC/DC. The assessee had declared a total income of ₹2,21,55,76,50, which, according to the instruction, should have fallen under the jurisdiction of the AC/DC. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, citing the decision in Raghvendra Mohta Vs. ACIT, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs. Raghvendra Mohta. The High Court had held that an assessment framed by an AO who inherently lacks jurisdiction is bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The first ground of the assessee's cross-objection was allowed. The second issue raised in the cross-objection was not adjudicated and left open. The Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it did not specify whether it was for limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny, violating CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it did not conform to CBDT instructions regarding scrutiny type and was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had provided all necessary documents to the AO and that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry. The Tribunal concurred that the addition could not be solely based on non-compliance with summons under Section 131 of the Act, especially when the AO had not conducted independent inquiries.
The Tribunal held that to ensure the ends of justice, the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the reasons for the 13-day delay in filing the appeal were bona fide and genuine. The ITAT condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is now directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ITO was invalid as it was not in accordance with CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which specifies monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCIT/ACITs. Consequently, the DCIT who framed the assessment lacked inherent jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order void. The Tribunal relied on a similar decision affirmed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
The Tribunal held that the loss incurred by the assessee from trading in commodity on foreign currency is not a speculative loss. It found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence and that such transactions fall under the exceptions provided in Section 43(5)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal found the assessment framed by the AO invalid because no Section 143(2) notice was issued. It held that even if a return is considered 'non-est' due to being filed belatedly, if the AO relies on that return for computing income, a Section 143(2) notice is mandatory before completing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a valid search on the assessee's premises is a prerequisite for invoking the provisions of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's name appeared in the Panchnama, the search was conducted at premises in Kolkata that did not belong to the assessee, and the assessee's actual business premises at 81, G.T. Road, Asansol, were not searched. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was wrongly framed. The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench's decision in Room Alankar Vs. DCIT, which was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. J.M. Trading Corpn. The Tribunal concluded that since no search was conducted against the assessee at its premises, the notice issued under Section 153A was baseless, and the assessments made thereunder were null and void. Consequently, the assessments were quashed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income fell within the monetary limits for ITO jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devichand Jain, the Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ACIT was without jurisdiction and consequently quashed the assessment framed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, passed without considering the adjournment request, violated provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ITAT, in the interest of justice and fairplay, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions, and the share premium was justified by fair market valuation as per Rule 11UA. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal affirmed that no disallowance can be made when no exempt income is earned, citing judicial precedents and noting the prospective application of the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, passed without considering the adjournment request, violated provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ITAT, in the interest of justice and fairplay, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the 341-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the reason bonafide and genuine. It further condoned the 30-day delay in filing before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, passed without considering the adjournment request, violated provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ITAT, in the interest of justice and fairplay, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that a valid search on the assessee's premises is a prerequisite for invoking the provisions of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's name appeared in the Panchnama, the search was conducted at premises in Kolkata that did not belong to the assessee, and the assessee's actual business premises at 81, G.T. Road, Asansol, were not searched. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was wrongly framed. The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench's decision in Room Alankar Vs. DCIT, which was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. J.M. Trading Corpn. The Tribunal concluded that since no search was conducted against the assessee at its premises, the notice issued under Section 153A was baseless, and the assessments made thereunder were null and void. Consequently, the assessments were quashed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal by the department. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153A to make additions in an unabated assessment year without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment had achieved finality. The CIT(A) had correctly applied the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the protective addition made by the AO under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE was redundant and otiose because the cash deposits were from the partners' taxable income, and taxes had already been paid on it. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a decision on merits. It restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, passed without considering the adjournment request, violated provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ITAT, in the interest of justice and fairplay, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal held that since no condonation petition had been filed by the revenue to explain the 219-day delay, they were unable to admit the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed solely on account of the delay.
The Tribunal found no justifiable reason for the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to represent their case before either the assessment or appellate authorities. As the assessee could not point out any error in the findings of the Id. CIT(A) on merits, the Tribunal confirmed the Id. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay. However, it dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's consistent failure to represent its case before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and found no justifiable reason to interfere with the Id. CIT(A)'s order or to restore the matter to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned a 49-day delay in filing the appeal. It acknowledged that the sale agreement and most transaction formalities were completed in 2012 at a lower consideration. The Tribunal found the higher registration value was due to the two-year time gap and fluctuations in registration charges, ruling that the addition of Rs. 5,15,326/- was incorrect and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to furnish documents before the AO and CIT(A), and its inability to provide evidence supporting the stated reasons for the 2590-day delay, such as frozen bank accounts or inactive Director Identification Numbers (DINs). Concluding that the assessee demonstrated gross negligence and lacked due diligence, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition, deeming it not a fit case to condone such a substantial delay.
The ITAT condoned the 95-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer with directions to dispose of the matter as per the rectification order already passed under Section 154 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata, was invalid and a nullity because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional AO after the case transfer. Furthermore, the case file was transferred between AOs without a proper administrative order under Section 127(3) by the PCIT. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the tribunal quashed the assessment framed by the AO.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the income was taxed in the hands of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Ltd. and, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine whether the company indeed offered the disputed amount for taxation, with the assessee being granted an opportunity to be heard and to cooperate.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, confirming it due to the assessee's consistent non-cooperation and failure to provide justifiable reasons for delays and non-representation.
The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them illegal and void ab-initio as the information relied upon did not directly implicate the assessee, and the transaction was previously scrutinized in the original assessment. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal, noting that the reopening was done mechanically without proper investigation or application of mind and that the statement relied upon did not relate to the assessee.