Loading ITAT cases…
380 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a specific inquiry into the donation expenditure by issuing a notice under Section 142(1) and had accepted the assessee's detailed explanation. The assessee had explained that the donation of ₹12,35,00,000/- to GD Charitable Society was for the welfare of Home Bidi Rollers, which was considered a business expenditure for employee welfare, especially during the COVID period. The Tribunal noted that the AO had taken a possible view by allowing this expenditure after detailed inquiry. Relying on the decisions in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., PCIT vs. Kesoram Industries Limited, PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Limited, and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that where the AO has taken one of the possible views, the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be invoked. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered no objection to disallowing the donation of ₹2,36,05,000/- during rectification proceedings. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid. The primary reason for reopening was the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-, which was the subject of the notice under Section 148A(d). When the CIT(A) deleted this addition, the very foundation of the reopening was demolished. Consequently, any other additions made by the AO, including the Rs. 5,63,75,000/- on account of share sales, were rendered without valid jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that since the search on the third party, Anil Kumar Kasera, occurred prior to 01.04.2021, and incriminating material was found, the AO was duty-bound to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 147/148. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in ACIT vs. Gopal Prasad Gupta and Paras Chandreshbhai Koticha. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment framed under Section 147 were quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding bogus purchases (Issue 1): The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents, including bills, confirmations, and GST details. The non-response of suppliers to Section 133(6) notices does not automatically make purchases bogus, especially when payments were made via account payee cheques and GST input credit was availed. The AO's ad-hoc disallowance was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if the assessee provides sufficient evidence, the onus shifts, and the AO should utilize departmental machinery to verify if needed. The CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. Regarding sale promotion expenses and foreign travel expenses (Issue 2): The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in a related appeal (ITA No. 2692/KOL/2025 for AY 2021-22) where it had set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 33,63,43,852/- concerning sale promotion expenses and the entire addition of Rs. 7,52,011/- concerning foreign travel expenses. Therefore, the grounds related to these issues were allowed. Operative direction: The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 62,32,826/- in respect of sundry creditors was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee made substantial purchases and payments, and the outstanding creditors were genuine, supported by evidence. The AO's action of treating them as bogus without proper verification was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. Regarding the Rs. 16,87,577/- addition under Section 41(1), the Tribunal found that the AO wrongly invoked the provision as there was no remission or cessation of liability, and the creditors were duly shown in the balance sheet. Relying on various Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed deletion of the addition. For the Rs. 31,315/- addition towards personal expenses, the Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of 20% was based purely on surmises and presumptions without any basis, and no defect in the evidence filed by the assessee was pointed out. The addition was set aside. Lastly, concerning the Rs. 1,99,258/- notional interest, the Tribunal found the AO's action of treating advances to suppliers and security deposits as non-genuine and applying notional interest to be ridiculous and based on estimation and surmises. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. Ground No. 6 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT and the decisions of coordinate Benches in Rahul Anand and Jaspal Singh Bindra. The Tribunal found that merely because Form 67 was not filed within the prescribed time limit as per Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, it should not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for taxes paid outside India. The Tribunal noted that a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) exists between India and Nepal. The Tribunal concluded that the claim for FTC is allowable, and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit in accordance with law and the DTAA between India and Nepal. Grounds 2 to 8 were allowed. Grounds 1 and 9 were general and did not require separate adjudication. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,65,28,285/- by the learned CIT(A) was correct. The Tribunal reasoned that the liability towards M/s International Enterprises was continuously reflected in the assessee's books of account and had not been written back. The AO had not provided any material to demonstrate that the creditor had waived the liability or that it had been remitted or extinguished. The Tribunal found that the reasons for the addition – the liability remaining outstanding for a long period, failure to produce confirmation, and non-compliance with RBI/FEMA remittance periods – did not, individually or collectively, establish remission or cessation of liability as contemplated under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., which held that mere lapse of time or non-payment does not amount to cessation of liability. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on the assessee's books of accounts and other evidences furnished by the assessee, not on any incriminating material found during the search on the Surana Group. The Tribunal noted that the assessments for the impugned assessment years had already attained finality and had not abated. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Sri Shanti Kumar Surana (which followed Abhisar Buildwell), the Tribunal held that in cases of unabated and completed assessments, additions can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search. Since no such material was found concerning the additions in question, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make them under Section 153C/153A. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 274 days, finding the reasons to be genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not fully represented the case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable as the money was recorded in the assessee's books and was part of a legitimate transaction of depositing and remitting funds for stamp paper issuance. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary documents, including amalgamation orders and updated company data, which the CIT(A) had ignored. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the money used for purchasing jewellery on behalf of the company, out of disclosed income during search, and kept in the assessee's custody, cannot be treated as a cash loan. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the stamp value cannot be substituted as sales consideration without referring the matter to the DVO. The DVO's report for co-owners valued the property at ₹1,74,84,000/-.
The tribunal held that the addition regarding property no.1 was unsustainable as the DVO's report was not received within the stipulated time. For the other three properties, the tribunal found that the AO had not confronted the assessee with the available data, and since the assessee denied purchasing them, no addition could be made.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI deposit was incorrect as it was made prior to the Apex Court decision and was a debatable issue not suitable for 143(1) adjustment. The addition for contingent liability was also deleted as it was not debited or claimed as a deduction.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause to promote substantial justice, the ITAT condoned the delay of 233 days. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The specific amount in dispute was not recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 384 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 384 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while it is expected for assessees to file appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona fide and beyond the assessee's control, it can be construed as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's clarification that delay with sufficient cause should be viewed liberally and condoned, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which established that justifiable reasons for delay should make way for substantial justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 781 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). Furthermore, as the assessee had not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause for substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was passed on March 22, 2022, without considering Form No. 10IE, which was available on the department's portal, albeit filed belatedly on February 26, 2022. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal, stating that the filing of Form No. 10IE is directory and not mandatory. Consequently, the assessee cannot be denied the benefits of the new tax regime due to technical lapses. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of concessional tax in accordance with law.
On the issue of warranty provisions, the Tribunal held that since the assessee created provisions against which payments were made, these are provisions for expenses incurred in the normal course of business. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow actual payments made against warranty provisions while computing income, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. This issue was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the difference in income from house property and business, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify if the income was offered in earlier years. If so, the disallowance is to be deleted. This issue was also allowed for statistical purposes. Concerning the adjustment of Rs. 6,41,17,73,662/- in the section 143(1) intimation, the Tribunal quashed the intimation. It held that the AO, CPC failed to follow the mandatory first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) by not issuing a prior intimation before making the adjustment, rendering the intimation invalid and bad in law, following precedents. This ground was allowed. The appeal in ITA No. 654/Kol/2025 was allowed, and the appeal in ITA No. 1931/Kol/2024 was allowed for statistical purposes.
On the issue of warranty provisions, the Tribunal held that since the assessee created provisions against which payments were made, these are provisions for expenses incurred in the normal course of business. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow actual payments made against warranty provisions while computing income, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. This issue was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the difference in income from house property and business, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify if the income was offered in earlier years. If so, the disallowance is to be deleted. This issue was also allowed for statistical purposes. Concerning the adjustment of Rs. 6,41,17,73,662/- in the section 143(1) intimation, the Tribunal quashed the intimation. It held that the AO, CPC failed to follow the mandatory first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) by not issuing a prior intimation before making the adjustment, rendering the intimation invalid and bad in law, following precedents. This ground was allowed. The appeal in ITA No. 654/Kol/2025 was allowed, and the appeal in ITA No. 1931/Kol/2024 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documentation regarding the share subscribers. The AO's addition was based solely on an investigation report without pinpointing defects in the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation for the cash deposits before the lower authorities. However, the assessee submitted before the Tribunal that the books of accounts were corrupted, preventing the production of evidence earlier, and that the books have now been reconstructed, allowing substantiation of the sources of cash deposits. The assessee requested admission of additional evidence. The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons provided for the non-production of evidence before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, considering the additional evidence filed. All contentions raised by the assessee were left open to be decided by the Assessing Officer. The issue regarding the invocation of Section 115BBE was not expressly decided but would be considered during the de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's explanation without discussing any supporting evidence. The assessee had not furnished any evidence to substantiate his claim of acting as an agent for R.M. Associates or confirmation letters stating that funds were provided by R.M. Associates. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not taken the stand of being an agent for R.M. Associates before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was found to be bereft of any evidence supporting the explanation. Consequently, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the matter required reconsideration by the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue of whether the assessee was engaged in jewel re-pledging business and the source of cash deposits were not definitively decided but were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. 1, concerning the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), was dismissed as the assessment order clearly stated that the notice was issued and duly served. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that in the remand proceedings, the AO accepted the cash sales and the cash balance available prior to demonetization. The AO's remand report indicated that a comparative study of cash sales as a percentage of total sales showed the disclosed cash sales to be within comparable limits. The Tribunal observed that cash sales as a percentage of total sales during the demonetization period (October-December 2016) were 20%, which was lower than in the earlier year (22%). Therefore, the Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on this ground. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) relied on Supreme Court decisions in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust and New Noble Educational Society without adequately examining the objects of the assessee's trust and the specific facts of the case. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a fresh examination by the CIT(E) was necessary, considering the trust's objects. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination. For the appeal concerning Section 80G(5) approval, the Tribunal noted it was consequential to the Section 12AB issue. As the Section 12AB matter was remanded, the Tribunal also remanded the Section 80G(5) approval application to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. The grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on both issues and restored them to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was given further opportunities to produce evidence and the AO was directed to conduct further inquiries.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bonafide reasons. Following a coordinate bench's decision and considering the Supreme Court's ruling on the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim' issue, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the difference in property investment was reconciled by considering stamp duty, registration charges, and a discount allowed by the builder, thus deleting the sustained addition. It also held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when there is no exempt income, deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the replacement expenditure was capital or revenue was debatable, with divergent judicial views. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it concluded that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bonafide reasons. Following a coordinate bench's decision and considering the Supreme Court's ruling on the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim' issue, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's severe health issues. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposits, considering their medical condition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bonafide reasons. Following a coordinate bench's decision and considering the Supreme Court's ruling on the 'Old Settlers of Sikkim' issue, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate time and opportunity to present its case, and crucial documents like Annexure-A were not supplied. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay for ITA No.1957/Kol/2026 and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For ITA No.1958/Kol/2026, the Tribunal held that the Section 154 order was wrongly passed as it made adjustments on issues not raised in the show-cause notice, thus cancelling the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay for ITA No.1957/Kol/2026 and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For ITA No.1958/Kol/2026, the Tribunal held that the Section 154 order was wrongly passed as it made adjustments on issues not raised in the show-cause notice, thus cancelling the order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rightly remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication because the assessee had produced new documents not available during the original assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 660 days in filing the appeal, accepting the explanation that the delay occurred due to the assessee's demise and the legal heirs' lack of awareness of the proceedings, considering it a bonafide and reasonable cause, citing M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao. On merits, the Tribunal held that the solitary issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the explanation that cash deposits were made from earlier cash withdrawals, out of which savings were made. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently maintained that the deposits were from past savings from salary income and that Rs.33,42,658/- was withdrawn over five years preceding demonetization. The Tribunal opined that this explanation could not be ruled out without contrary evidence and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were allowed. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was indirectly confirmed by the CIT(A) and would be deleted consequent to the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) relied on Supreme Court decisions in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust and New Noble Educational Society without adequately examining the objects of the assessee's trust and the specific facts of the case. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a fresh examination by the CIT(E) was necessary, considering the trust's objects. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination. For the appeal concerning Section 80G(5) approval, the Tribunal noted it was consequential to the Section 12AB issue. As the Section 12AB matter was remanded, the Tribunal also remanded the Section 80G(5) approval application to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. The grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's petition under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing the return of income was pending before the PCIT, Madurai. The issue before the Tribunal was intrinsically connected with the outcome of this condonation petition. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to await the decision of the PCIT rather than adjudicating the claim for deduction under Section 80P at that stage. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases. The matter was restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) with a direction to consider the assessee's claim afresh after receiving the order from the PCIT on the condonation petition. The JAO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order. All contentions of the assessee, including the claim for deduction under Section 80P, were kept open for consideration at that stage. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). Regarding the disallowance of expenditure, the Tribunal noted that while the assessee admitted deficiencies in maintaining supporting records, the AO had not produced specific material to establish that the expenditure was bogus, fictitious, or for non-business purposes. The declared turnover was not disputed. The CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 5% of the declared turnover, based on past results and deficiencies in record-keeping, was considered a reasonable basis for determining business income. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son, stating that a statement recorded during survey alone cannot be the sole basis for an addition. The Revenue did not challenge the basis of the estimation or dispute the past net profit figures considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s approach was found to be without infirmity, and the differential income sustained was upheld. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous because the assessee did not press the grounds if the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act, dated March 19, 2020, as indicated by the Form No. 35 and the condonation of delay application. The assessee had sought condonation of delay from the date of the Section 154 order, not the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that there was no change in the assessed income between the Section 144 assessment order and the Section 154 rectification order. Therefore, the issue of additions made in the assessment order under Section 144 could only be challenged in an appeal filed against that specific order. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal and found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. After considering the explanation for the delay and noting that the Ld. DR did not raise any objection, the Tribunal found the delay to be for bonafide and genuine reasons and condoned it. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 2587/Kol/2024 had quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment framed under Section 144 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the impugned penalty levied under Section 271(b) of the Act was not sustainable, as it was based on an assessment order that had been quashed. Therefore, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year. It found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, which argued that visicoolers placed at third-party distributors were not eligible for additional depreciation.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was passed ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to hearing notices. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the matter to the PCIT for a decision on merits after considering the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the correct assessment order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 12,09,970/- due to the delay in filing Form 67 was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 67 was a procedural lapse, and the assessee had paid taxes. It relied on various judicial pronouncements, including decisions by the Kolkata ITAT in cases like Ratanlal Bhura and Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay, which held that filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules does not prescribe disallowance of FTC for delayed filing of Form 67, and the Act itself (Sections 90/91) does not stipulate a timeline for filing such a declaration. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s differing view, without assigning reasons, to be legally unjustifiable. Therefore, the AO ought not to have denied the relief under Section 90 solely for the delay in filing Form 67. The appeal was allowed on this issue. The ground related to late fees on GST was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, as per CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011, rendered the notice invalid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declared income of Rs. 41,30,110/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 exceeded the Rs. 15 lacs limit for non-corporate returns in metro cities, which should have placed the jurisdiction with the ACIT, not the ITO. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in PCIT Vs M/S Shree Shoppers, which confirmed that an invalid notice under Section 143(2) goes to the root of the matter and makes the entire assessment proceeding void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued by an authority lacking territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is fundamentally flawed and invalidates all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Regarding the addition of Rs. 45,00,000 under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a balance sheet, ITR acknowledgments, account confirmations, and bank statements of the lender, M/s Pioneere Saree Merchants Pvt Ltd, to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also observed that the loan had been fully repaid by the assessee, with repayment dates provided. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting this addition, implicitly agreeing that the assessee had discharged its initial burden and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to disprove it. Consequently, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 2,16,986 was also deleted. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous since the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, it was appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed ex parte orders because the assessee did not respond to various opportunities. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with the law, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to furnish all necessary documents and evidence as requested by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.