Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in conformity with the CBDT instructions and therefore invalid. Consequently, all subsequent assessment proceedings were also deemed invalid.
The tribunal held that the amendment increasing the tolerance limit under Section 56(2)(x)(b) from 5% to 10% is retrospective. Since the difference between the DVO's valuation and the purchase consideration was less than 10%, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the Revenue for the delay to be vague and unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal did not condone the delay.
The tribunal noted that the authorized representative appearing on behalf of the assessee was not in uniform as required. Consequently, the matter was heard ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in upholding the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash credits in the form of gifts received from relatives. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, which demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the donors. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee provides satisfactory evidence to explain cash credits, including the identity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, the AO cannot arbitrarily treat such credits as unexplained income. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had wrongly reported ₹41,42,088/- in the original Tax Audit Report for club expenses, while the correct amount was ₹41,421/-. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider this factual mistake, despite the revised Tax Audit Report being uploaded.
The Tribunal invoked the powers of the appellate authority based on the Supreme Court ruling in Goetz India Ltd. The physical return filed in ITR-5 along with the computation was forwarded to the AO for consideration as a revised return.
The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on wrong presumptions and a non-application of mind. Specifically, the AO presumed the property was sold when it was actually purchased, and the assertion that four years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year was also incorrect. The approval granted by the JCIT was also deemed questionable due to the flawed reasoning. The Tribunal noted the haphazard manner in which the assessment order was passed and the discrepancy in the dates of providing reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was considered not maintainable as it was contrary to the department's policy decision.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. Reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year requires failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, which was not established in this case.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) by the ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata, was in violation of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. The income declared by the assessee exceeded the limit for an ITO and should have been handled by a DC/AC.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was contrary to the policy decision of the Department as laid down in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, violating CBDT instructions on pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as bad in law.
The CIT(A)-21 did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the appeal already disposed of by another CIT(A). The order passed by CIT(A)-21 was set aside, and the earlier order of Ld.CIT(A)-15 dated 15/06/2017 was restored. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the department.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in conformity with the CBDT instructions regarding e-proceedings. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 143(2) was indeed not issued, as evidenced by the portal screenshot. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Sudarshan Paper and Board Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the absence of this statutory notice renders the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the documents furnished by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate claims with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard and to cooperate in the proceedings.
The tribunal condoned the delay. However, observing that the tax effect in the revenue's appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit, the tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable and was contrary to the department's policy decision.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. Reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year requires failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, which was not established in this case.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative was not in uniform. Consequently, the matter was heard ex-parte, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(E) or the Tribunal, and the application was rejected for non-compliance without considering the merits. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(E) for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order for AY 2015-16 was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in both appeals. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly noted the statement of Shri Rishi Jain regarding the group's cash balance and that the total group cash balance of Rs. 72,83,790 on the search date explained the cash found. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s decision was consistent with a prior order in the case of Jain Group Projects, which had become final. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 31,48,220 was deleted. For the second issue, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the AO could not partly rely on and partly reject the seized document JGPO/1. The Tribunal noted that JGPO/1 was a brokerage book, and the brokerage income from these transactions was declared and accepted by the AO. The Tribunal relied on the principle that documents must be read as a whole and that admissions must be considered in their entirety, citing cases like *Glass Lines Equipment’s Co. Ltd. vs. CIT* and *Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT*. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions totaling Rs. 30,82,78,992, as the AO had not brought on record any substantive evidence to prove otherwise and had accepted brokerage income from some transactions while rejecting others from the same document. The presumption that contents of documents are true is rebuttable, and the department failed to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in both appeals. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly noted the statement of Shri Rishi Jain regarding the group's cash balance and that the total group cash balance of Rs. 72,83,790 on the search date explained the cash found. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s decision was consistent with a prior order in the case of Jain Group Projects, which had become final. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 31,48,220 was deleted. For the second issue, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the AO could not partly rely on and partly reject the seized document JGPO/1. The Tribunal noted that JGPO/1 was a brokerage book, and the brokerage income from these transactions was declared and accepted by the AO. The Tribunal relied on the principle that documents must be read as a whole and that admissions must be considered in their entirety, citing cases like *Glass Lines Equipment’s Co. Ltd. vs. CIT* and *Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT*. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions totaling Rs. 30,82,78,992, as the AO had not brought on record any substantive evidence to prove otherwise and had accepted brokerage income from some transactions while rejecting others from the same document. The presumption that contents of documents are true is rebuttable, and the department failed to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by furnishing all necessary details and evidence regarding the loan creditors, including names, addresses, PAN numbers, audited accounts, confirmations, and bank statements. The lenders had also duly complied with the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, confirming the transactions. The AO's doubt about the creditworthiness of the lenders, based on their dealings with Kailash Kumar Patwari, was not sufficient to treat the loans as unexplained cash credit, especially when no defects were pointed out in the evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that in the case of one lender, Alco Suppliers Private Limited, a co-ordinate bench had allowed the appeal in favour of the lender. Furthermore, the Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Sreeleathers, which emphasized that once the assessee provides identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness evidence, the burden shifts to the AO to further investigate, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had two PANs due to a mistake where a new PAN was applied for instead of obtaining a duplicate of the misplaced PAN. The AO had noted significant credits in a bank account linked to one PAN (AHDED1535B) for which no return was filed, while the assessee had filed a return with another PAN (ADVPDO925B). The Tribunal opined that this situation, involving double PANs and credits in a bank account without a corresponding return, required examination at the AO's level for proper reconciliation and verification to bring the correct income to tax. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. No specific amount was decided, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 909 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC should be condoned. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine and bonafide, noting that the AO had sent the assessment order to an incorrect email address (igmhvbrai@gmail.com) instead of the assessee's correct email address (vinodraiigms@gmail.com). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the present appeal was covered by its own coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case (ITA No.1567/Kol/2025). In that earlier decision, the Tribunal had dealt with an inadvertent filing of Form 10AB for AY 2023-24 instead of AY 2024-25. The Tribunal had admitted an additional ground allowing the assessee to withdraw the inadvertently filed Form 10AB and quash the consequent order. The Tribunal had reasoned that the assessee was already registered under Section 12AA before the amendment and was eligible for registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) for a period of five years from AY 2021-22 to 2025-26, as against the three years granted. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to allow registration from AY 2021-22 to 2025-26. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the first issue raised in the additional grounds. Regarding the second issue of inadvertent filing, the Tribunal quashed the Form 10AB filed for AY 2023-24 and the consequent order in Form 10AD, citing a coordinate bench decision in Sawansukha Foundation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The reasons recorded by the AO were cryptic, vague, and scanty, indicating a 'borrowed satisfaction' without independent application of mind to the information received from the investigation wing. The Tribunal found no live link between the information and the AO's formation of belief, citing *Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd.* and *Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd.*. Consequently, the reopening and the consequent assessment were quashed. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the assessment order dated March 31, 2022, was dispatched on April 2, 2022, which was after the limitation period of March 31, 2022, had expired. Following *CIT vs. BJN Hotels Karnataka* and *CIT vs. Kuppumalai Estate*, the Tribunal held that an assessment order must be beyond the control of the AO within the limitation period. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as being barred by limitation. As both grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid. The CIT(A) correctly observed that since the source of information emanated from a search on third parties (brokers Kasera and Sanwaria), proceedings under Section 153C would have been the appropriate course of action, not Section 147. On merits, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 36.65 crores as unexplained cash loans and interest was not sustainable. The impounded documents (SKB/1, CUML/1, CUML/2) were considered 'dumb documents' as they lacked corroborative material to support the alleged investments or loan transactions. The assessee's retracted statement under Section 133A could not be the sole basis for the addition, especially in light of CBDT instructions to avoid obtaining admissions without evidence. The Tribunal relied on the principle that retracted confessions must be substantially corroborated by independent and cogent evidence, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Vinod Solanki & Others vs. UOI' and a Delhi High Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India, allowed the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. For the cash credit addition, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty under Section 271D was set aside as the transaction was through a cheque and constituted a journal entry, not attracting Section 269SS.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India, allowed the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. For the cash credit addition, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty under Section 271D was set aside as the transaction was through a cheque and constituted a journal entry, not attracting Section 269SS.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India, allowed the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. For the cash credit addition, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty under Section 271D was set aside as the transaction was through a cheque and constituted a journal entry, not attracting Section 269SS.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India, allowed the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. For the cash credit addition, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty under Section 271D was set aside as the transaction was through a cheque and constituted a journal entry, not attracting Section 269SS.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be made solely on the ground of non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 of the Act, particularly when the assessee has provided all the requisite evidences to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished documents such as PANs, ITRs, audited financial statements, share application forms, board resolutions, and confirmations of share applicants. The AO had not pointed out any defects in these documents through further inquiry. The Tribunal found support in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Corporation Ltd., the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd, and a coordinate bench decision in ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing sufficient evidence, and the non-compliance with summons by the investors was not a sufficient ground to treat the amount as unexplained cash credit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the unsecured loans from related parties who had genuine sources and creditworthiness. The Tribunal noted that the loans were repaid and the lenders had income from salaries. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore condoned the delay. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application for regular registration because the assessee did not file the notarized affidavit, which was stated to be not filed due to the non-availability of trustees. The Tribunal was of the view that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to comply with the directions of the CIT(E). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that club expenses incurred by a corporate entity are wholly and exclusively for business purposes and thus allowable. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income. Additions to book profit under Section 115JB for Section 14A disallowances are not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 by the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the reassessment framed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed by an officer who did not have the requisite jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, rendering the assessment order invalid and a nullity. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order for AY 2015-16 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in the format prescribed by the CBDT. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent proceedings were deemed invalid.
The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in the prescribed format as per CBDT circulars and was therefore invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest on SB deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following previous decisions. However, the issue of disallowance on income from members was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Judicial Member noted that the assessee has not taken any action to represent their case or provide supporting evidence for their claim. Consequently, the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are considered to be on a correct footing and do not require any interference.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. It was found that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) and no clear live link connecting the information received to the assessee. The AO relied solely on a report without independent verification.
The tribunal noted that one of the grounds raised was whether the recorded reasons were provided to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission for condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal found that the reasons provided were not valid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was capable of filing returns online and responding to notices, but claimed ignorance of the order for the appeal filing. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.