Loading ITAT cases…
246 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the declared income of Rs.3,97,510/- must be deducted from the estimated income of Rs.12,25,980/-. The Assessing Officer was directed to make this deduction, thereby allowing the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee files all evidence regarding loan creditors and repayment before the Assessing Officer, such amounts cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act. The addition made by the AO was found not warranted based on a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the mere low taxable income of the investors cannot be a sole criterion for treating the investments as unexplained cash credit. The proviso to Section 68 of the Act, introduced in 2012, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting additional documents from the assessee without allowing the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine them or call for a remand report, violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked application of mind.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on the retracted statement, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence and the CBDT's instructions against obtaining confessions. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of the Section 40A(3) disallowance, noting that some payments were made by account payee cheques and others were for business necessity.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under Section 153A in respect of completed/unabated assessments. The assessment for AY 2009-10 was unabated, and the additions made under Section 14A and transfer pricing were routine disallowances/additions not linked to the search findings. Therefore, the assessment order under Section 153A was quashed, and the additions were deleted. The assessee's grounds related to Section 14A, Section 271(1)(c) (being premature), and the additional ground regarding jurisdiction were allowed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments was dismissed. The Tribunal concluded that for completed/unabated assessments, the AO can only reopen under Section 147/148, subject to their conditions, and powers under Section 153A are limited to cases with incriminating material.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide requisite information and evidence to the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals). To ensure the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity by remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals).
The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred for 189 days without condoning the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer was not warranted, referencing a coordinate bench's decision. It was noted that no penal action or proof of initiation of penal proceedings under the relevant Act was established against the assessee, making the exceptions to deductions under Section 37(1) inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeal becomes infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and incorrectly stated that no explanation was filed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under Section 153A in respect of completed/unabated assessments. The assessment for AY 2009-10 was unabated, and the additions made under Section 14A and transfer pricing were routine disallowances/additions not linked to the search findings. Therefore, the assessment order under Section 153A was quashed, and the additions were deleted. The assessee's grounds related to Section 14A, Section 271(1)(c) (being premature), and the additional ground regarding jurisdiction were allowed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments was dismissed. The Tribunal concluded that for completed/unabated assessments, the AO can only reopen under Section 147/148, subject to their conditions, and powers under Section 153A are limited to cases with incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous due to the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Tribunal noted that the NCLT had admitted the petition under Section 7 of the IBC, commenced CIRP, and enforced a moratorium under Section 14. Subsequently, a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT under Section 31 of the IBC. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweis Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and other judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal emphasized that upon the approval of a resolution plan, all claims, including statutory dues not part of the plan, stand extinguished. The IBC has an overriding effect over other laws, including the Income Tax Act, as per Section 238 of the IBC. Therefore, no proceedings can be initiated or continued against the corporate debtor, including income tax proceedings or recovery of demands, once a resolution plan is approved. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as infructuous, granting liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeals if the resolution plan is not accepted or is rejected, by filing an appropriate application within the permissible limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO's disposal of objections was not a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the notice for reopening and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine documents and pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is sanctioned under IBC, claims not part of the plan are extinguished, and the company starts with a clean slate. Therefore, the appeals become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by enhancing the assessment by ₹66,12,43,517/- on account of alleged bogus purchases, as this was beyond the subject matter of the appeal and on a different head. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s enhancement to be unsustainable as it was made without bringing any material on record or conducting further enquiry, and by relying on a distinguishable case (PCIT Vs. Konak Impex Ltd.). The Tribunal noted that in the Konak Impex case, the assessee was non-cooperative, whereas the present assessee was fully compliant. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not rejected the books of account under section 145(3) and had not established any nexus between the assessee and alleged unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in LS Contracts Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that purchases supported by e-way bills cannot be treated as non-genuine. Given that the e-way bills in the present case showed direct delivery of goods to customers, the Tribunal concluded that the purchases were not bogus. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the profit element from purchases not made by way of e-way bill @ 6%, subject to verification, but ultimately deleted the addition made by the AO and the enhancement by the CIT(A), allowing both issues raised by the assessee. The Tribunal stated that the AO was not justified in making an addition without rejecting books of account and establishing a nexus, and that the CIT(A) enhancement was not tenable without further material or enquiry. The Tribunal found the addition made by the AO uncalled for and unsustainable as it was an estimation without rejecting books of account, and the enhancement by the CIT(A) was also not tenable.
The Tribunal noted that in a separate quantum appeal, the underlying addition for processing charges was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, no longer survived, the penalty itself did not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to submit required documents and be heard.
The Tribunal noted that similar cases were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening and the notice issued under Section 148 were in the name of Energy Commodities Private Limited. However, at the time of recording reasons and issuing the notice, M/s Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. no longer existed as it had merged with M/s Ishana Projects Pvt. Ltd. The AO himself acknowledged this merger in the reasons recorded. Once a company merges, it ceases to exist as a separate legal entity. Therefore, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to issue a notice or pass an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment orders, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal, relying on High Court decisions, held that if the due date for depositing employee contributions to PF and ESI falls on a national holiday, the deposit made on the immediate next working day is considered timely. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Rs.2,97,313/- and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a company that had already merged. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which quashed the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.03.2019, is invalid. The Tribunal noted that the approval for reopening the case was granted by the JCIT, Range-29, Kolkata, on 31.03.2019, which is subsequent to the date of issuance of the notice. This contravenes the provisions of Section 151(2) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, which requires the approval to be obtained prior to the issuance of the notice. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was considered bad in law and was quashed. Consequently, the assessment order, which was based on this invalid notice, was also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent her case properly. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the delay due to a lack of understanding of the correct procedure and technical rejection. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the case should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an ex parte order solely on the grounds of non-compliance, which upheld the AO's order, was not justified. In the interest of substantial justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, citing extensions provided by TOLA due to the COVID period. However, it ruled that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as the law mandates a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment regarding Covid-19 period exclusions. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made proper compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, a delay in filing Form 67 should not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit, especially when supported by judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that proper representation was not made at the assessment and appellate stages and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adequate adjudication. Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), recognizing the clerical and bonafide nature of the error. It held that the assessee should not be penalized for mistakes made by their consultant and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without issuing a jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice was admitted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee's cash payments for commission and salary did not violate Section 40A(3) as individual transactions were below the statutory threshold. It was also held that Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence was inapplicable since the relevant facts and documents were already before the AO, who had misappreciated them. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all necessary details, but neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) conducted proper verification. It was held that non-compliance with summons under Section 131 by the share applicant cannot be the sole ground for an addition in the assessee's hands, citing multiple precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were cryptic, vague, and demonstrated a non-application of mind, relying solely on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without conducting any preliminary inquiry or establishing a 'live link' between the information and the belief of income escaping assessment. Citing several precedents, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the ensuing assessment were invalid and quashed them.
The Tribunal found that the expenses added by the AO were not verified due to a lack of evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the property was booked in 2016 and registered in 2019. Considering the father's advanced age, his retirement history, and the fact that his accumulated salary and pension income was not taxable, the Tribunal accepted the explanation provided by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the funds for the property purchase and stamp duty were from the father's personal savings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessment was invalidly reopened due to incorrect facts and lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary details regarding the share subscribers.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is barred by limitation, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. A co-ordinate bench had also decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 615 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bona fide and genuine, relying on the precedents mentioned by the assessee. Regarding the additional ground, the Tribunal admitted it for adjudication as it involved a purely legal issue with all facts available. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was registered under Section 12AA prior to the amendment and was eligible for registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) for five years from AY 2021-22 to 2025-26. However, the CIT (E) had granted provisional registration only from AY 2021-22 to 2023-24. The Tribunal directed the CIT (E) to allow registration from AY 2021-22 to 2025-26, allowing the first issue raised in the additional grounds. For the second issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the inadvertent filing of Form 10AB for AY 2023-24 when provisional registration was already valid till that year. The Tribunal quashed the Form 10AB filed on 05.03.2023 for AY 2023-24 and the consequent order in Form 10AD dated 11.09.2023, allowing the second issue in the additional grounds. The original grounds of appeal were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the Pr.CIT's invocation of Section 263 based solely on the AO's proposal was not sustainable, citing established jurisprudence requiring the Pr.CIT to apply independent mind and fulfill the twin conditions for revisional jurisdiction. It noted that the Faceless Assessment Unit had accepted the returned income after document verification, and the DVO's valuation was based on an 'illegal referral' and not considered in the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹6,93,59,900/- on account of cash deposits and the related interest income of ₹9,12,342/- cannot be made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessees. The reasoning was that Mr. Bark Biswas had undisputedly owned the cash deposits and had admitted this ownership in an affidavit. Furthermore, these accounts and transactions were disclosed in the balance sheet of Biswas Enterprises, owned by Mr. Bark Biswas. Mr. Bark Biswas was also assessed to tax on these amounts. The Tribunal found that when the primary owner of the income has admitted and owned up to the cash deposits and disclosed them in his own assessment, there is no scope for adding the same income protectively in the hands of the assessee, who was merely an employee. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. The ratio decidendi is that income admitted and accounted for by the primary owner cannot be added protectively to an employee's income.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,50,93,750/-. The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition based on statements of entry operators. However, during the remand proceedings, the assessee filed all necessary details and evidences before the AO, including names, addresses, confirmations of source of funds, bank statements, and audited bank accounts. The Tribunal found that the investors had sufficient funds, and the AO could not point out any deficiency in the documents. The CIT(Appeals) had also recorded a finding of fact that the AO could not bring out any positive material to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order to be reasoned and speaking, requiring no interference. Regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 40,65,679/- as loss on sale of investments, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the AO's adverse inference was based on the scrip appearing in the department's penny stock list and the belief that transactions were pre-arranged. However, the CIT(Appeals) observed that no incriminating documents were found during search proceedings. The assessee provided contract notes, proof of transactions on the stock market at prevailing prices through banking channels, and suffered STT, brokerage, etc. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, CIT v. Shreyashi Ganguli, and CIT v. Rungta Properties Private Limited, which held that transactions at prevailing prices, supported by documentation and without incriminating evidence, cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusion was based on suspicion and the Investigation Wing's report, without specific findings linking the assessee's transactions to any scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the discrepancy in sales was due to an auditor's mistake, admitted by the assessee. It held that only the profit element embedded in the undisclosed sales, calculated at the disclosed profit rate of 7.03% (Rs. 3,83,865/-), should be taxed, not the entire sales amount. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO for the full sales amount was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the lower authorities could not be sustained because the assessee denied the transactions, and the broker confirmed the PAN details were uploaded incorrectly. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that if the funds were actually applied by the trust, the deduction should be allowed despite the error in preparing the return. The appeals were restored to the file of JAO for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), agreeing that only the profit element embedded in the undisclosed sales should be taxed, not the entire sale amount. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.