ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal noted that the sole appellant, Baban Dashrath Hande, is deceased. An order was passed on 12.03.2015 directing that the legal heirs be brought on record and the appeals be posted thereafter. However, no steps have been taken to comply with this order for over nine years. On the date of hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the legal heirs of the assessee, nor was there any appearance for the Department. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the appeals cannot be prosecuted further and are therefore disposed of as abated. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the AO did not conduct proper inquiries into the income declared from the survey. The PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary powers under section 263.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the AO failed to apply his own mind and acted solely on the satisfaction of another authority. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding them to be based on incorrect facts and a non-existent company.

The Tribunal noted that in similar cases for earlier assessment years involving the same parties, the addition was restricted to 3% of the bogus purchases. Considering this precedent and the fact that the revenue itself argued for a 3% margin in other contexts, the Tribunal directed the AO to reduce the addition to 3% of the total impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and confirmed only the commission income. The reasoning was that the assessee had admitted to being an accommodation entry provider and had provided details of its commission earnings. The AO's approach of adding the entire amount under Section 68 was incorrect when the assessee's role was established as an intermediary earning commission. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and the evidence on record to determine the quantum of commission income that should be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had applied the correct principle by taxing the income earned by the assessee, which was the commission, rather than the entire corpus of the accommodation entries. The operative direction was to uphold the deletion of the principal amounts added under Section 68, thereby confirming the CIT(A)'s order regarding the taxation of commission income.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without considering the merits was also found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without identifying beneficiaries and determining if the income was taxed elsewhere. The AO's additions were not protective but substantive until beneficiaries were identified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and the need for a pragmatic approach. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without identifying beneficiaries and that the AO's addition was substantive, not protective. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that due to the medical condition, the appellate proceedings could not be attended. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order before the stipulated date for the Assessee to file written submissions, deeming it a blatant error. Considering this and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment orders, declaring them bad in law. It found that the reasons recorded for reopening were factually incorrect and that the Assessing Officer acted mechanically without independent application of mind, merely relying on information from the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal emphasized that the notice under section 148 must be issued based on the AO's own satisfaction that income has escaped assessment, a condition not met in this case.

The Tribunal noted that in similar cases for earlier assessment years involving the same parties, the addition was restricted to 3% of the bogus purchases. Considering this precedent and the fact that the revenue itself argued for a 3% margin in other contexts, the Tribunal directed the AO to reduce the addition to 3% of the total impugned purchases.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner's decision was ex-parte and lacked proper consideration of the issues due to the absence of supporting evidence from the Assessee. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the Assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct a proper inquiry into the assessee's claim for a negative adjustment in book profit concerning the transition amount. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's claim regarding the violation of the principle of natural justice due to the lack of proper opportunity to present their case. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case back to the Commissioner.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's claim regarding the violation of the principle of natural justice due to the lack of proper opportunity to present their case. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case back to the Commissioner.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and the need for a pragmatic approach. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's difficulties in providing documentation due to personnel changes and the Covid period. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the genuineness of the disallowed expenditures.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and the need for a pragmatic approach. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and the need for a pragmatic approach. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned due to sufficient cause. The assessee argued that an ex-parte order was passed without a proper hearing and that the additions were not justified as the firm was engaged in construction and used a project completion method. The Tribunal, considering that issues were not decided on merits and allowing for additional evidence, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the long pendency of the case and the peculiar facts and circumstances. To ensure just and proper decision and substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's claim regarding the violation of the principle of natural justice due to the lack of proper opportunity to present their case. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case back to the Commissioner.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting additional evidence from the assessee, including the creditor's balance sheet showing trade receivables from the assessee. However, the CIT(A) admitted this additional evidence without a formal application, an order, or providing an opportunity to the AO, thus violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules.

The tribunal noted the appellant's difficulties, including business closure and financial issues, which prevented them from cooperating with the AO. However, the appellant also failed to reconcile differences or provide explanations to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed any bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from trading in penny stocks and had actually incurred losses. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect and the deletion by the Ld. Commissioner was justified.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but also acknowledged an acknowledgment of a request for adjournment that was not considered. Due to the absence of proper submissions, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the charitable nature of the assessee and the technical glitch with the email. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's explanation on the timelines and merits of the application.

The Tribunal condoned the 385-day delay, finding that the assessee's arrest and subsequent custody constituted a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted all disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's claim regarding the violation of the principle of natural justice due to the lack of proper opportunity to present their case. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case back to the Commissioner.

The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. The re-opening was done after more than four years and was based on erroneous facts.

The Tribunal noted that the CPC, by a subsequent order under Section 154, rectified the mistake and accepted the assessee's option for taxation under Section 115BAB. Consequently, the tax liability was determined as per the assessee's calculation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and the need for a pragmatic approach. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without identifying beneficiaries and determining if the income was taxed elsewhere. The AO's additions were not protective but substantive until beneficiaries were identified.

The Tribunal noted that the cash deposited was collected before the demonetization period and was duly deposited in the bank. The ledger copies and bank statements supported the assessee's claim. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submission.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance by the AO and dismissal by the CIT(A) were set aside.

The CIT(A) had confirmed the levy of penalty despite the assessee filing an appeal against the quantum addition, which was later deleted by the appellate order. The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) would not survive.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had reasonably restricted the addition for STCG and commission, considering the investment in shares. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and did not interfere with it.

The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment can be made on account of corporate guarantees as the entire benefit and profit derived from the guarantee accrued to the assessee. The cross-objections of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that following the amendments to Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the absence of a corresponding amendment to Section 221, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy a penalty for delayed payment of self-assessment tax. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that following the amendments to Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the absence of a corresponding amendment to Section 221, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy a penalty for delayed payment of self-assessment tax. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions leading to penalty had been deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products, stating that merely because an expenditure claim was not accepted by the AO, it does not automatically attract penalty for concealment of income.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had added 12.5% of bogus purchases, considering sales tax and profit margin. However, the Ld. Commissioner restricted this addition to 2.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. Commissioner's decision, as the profit margin in the industry was indeed around 2.5%.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant and failed to provide documentary evidence before the CIT(A). However, considering the request for one more opportunity to present the case and file documentary evidence, the Tribunal decided to remand the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had added 12.5% of bogus purchases, considering sales tax and profit margin. However, the Ld. Commissioner restricted this addition to 2.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. Commissioner's decision, as the profit margin in the industry was indeed around 2.5%.

The Tribunal held that since the additions leading to penalty had been deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products, stating that merely because an expenditure claim was not accepted by the AO, it does not automatically attract penalty for concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that there was a bonafide and genuine reason for the belated filing of the appeal due to the negligence of the representative's appointed chartered accountant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Tribunal's previous decision held that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2003, which removed ambiguity regarding 'as appearing in the books of account', did not affect substantive rights and were curative in nature, thus applying prospectively to the facts of that case.

The Tribunal held that following the amendments to Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the absence of a corresponding amendment to Section 221, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy a penalty for delayed payment of self-assessment tax. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.