Loading ITAT cases…
699 orders · Page 13 of 14
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal, subject to a token cost, noting the reasons were genuine and the order was ex-parte. The Tribunal found the notices were issued at the fag end and the Commissioner could not decide the application properly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions under Section 68 by providing confirmations, bank statements, and evidence of TDS on interest. The lender company was duly incorporated, filed regular ITRs, and had sufficient shareholder funds.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18, the appeal dismissed on grounds of duplication should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the dismissal without examining the case violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case to avoid prejudice. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that certain grounds were not adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Regarding the issue of excess DDT paid under Section 115-O, the Tribunal, following precedents like Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd and Genpact India Pvt Ltd, held that such an issue, being independent of the assessment of total income, must be adjudicated in a separate appeal under Section 246A. The Tribunal directed that the fresh appeal filed by the assessee on DDT refund be admitted, delay condoned due to bona fide belief, and adjudicated on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The DDT ground in the original appeal was treated as infructuous. The Tribunal did not express any findings on the merits of the DDT issue at this stage.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18, the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) solely on the ground of duplication, without examining the merits, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to restore the appeal to its file for adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions on specific grounds, including the claim for refund of excess DDT. Following the precedent in JCIT v. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd and the Supreme Court in Genpact India Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal held that the issue of excess DDT paid under Section 115-O, being independent of the assessment of total income, must be adjudicated in a separate appeal. The Tribunal directed that a fresh appeal filed by the assessee on the DDT issue be admitted, delay condoned, and adjudicated on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was directed not to press the DDT ground in the original appeal to avoid duplication. The Tribunal did not express any findings on the merits of the DDT issue at this stage.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal, subject to a token cost, noting the reasons were genuine and the order was ex-parte. The Tribunal found the notices were issued at the fag end and the Commissioner could not decide the application properly.
The Tribunal noted that the same return of income was later selected for scrutiny assessment, and the Assessing Officer, after thorough examination under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act, allowed the deduction under Section 80IA. Given this, the Tribunal found no merit in the adjustment made by the CPC and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 65,03,040/- in the preceding year under Section 40(a) meant it could not be claimed as a deduction in the current year, even if the entire provision was reversed and offered to tax. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to Section 14A and Section 37.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. I of the assessee's appeal, concerning the assessment being non-est, was not pressed and was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. II of the assessee's appeal, concerning the disallowance of Rs. 65,03,040/-, the Tribunal found that in the preceding assessment year, after disallowing Rs. 65,03,040/- under Section 40(a), the assessee only claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,51,73,759/-. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that only Rs. 1,51,73,759/- was required to be reversed and offered to tax in the current year. The Tribunal directed that the disallowance of Rs. 65,03,040/- should not be made, as it would result in double disallowance. For Revenue's appeal, Ground No. 2 concerning Section 14A disallowance was dismissed. The Tribunal held that since the assessee earned no dividend income, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable, following judicial pronouncements and noting the prospective nature of the Finance Act, 2022 amendment. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal found that the assessee amortised the membership fees to Willingdon Sports Club over 10 years and claimed 1/10th as expenditure. However, there is no provision for amortising revenue expenditure. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 10,31,239/- was restored, and the CIT(A)'s finding was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to unavoidable circumstances and no malafide intention. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and directed the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate the issue after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and furnishing relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are to be considered cooperative societies, and interest income earned from them is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), following various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by admitting additional evidence (bank statements) without giving the AO an opportunity to examine them. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. For the issue of interest on NPAs, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is an NBFC and has to follow RBI directives. It was held that income not recognized in books as per RBI directives cannot be hypothetically regarded as income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's own case for earlier years had been decided by the Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal decided to follow the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal and allowed the appeal on this ground. For depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. and held that goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. The appeal on this ground was allowed. Regarding leave encashment and bonus under Section 43B, the Tribunal noted that the amounts were paid during the year and are allowable. The appeal on this ground was allowed. For Section 80G deduction, the Tribunal held that the restriction under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) does not bar the claim. The appeal was allowed. For TCS and TDS credit issues (Grounds 5, 6, and 7), the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claims as per law after giving an opportunity of hearing, allowing these grounds for statistical purposes. For DDT demand (Ground 8), the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim as per law after giving an opportunity of hearing, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. For brought forward losses (Ground 9) and book profits (Ground 10), the Tribunal noted that rectification applications were pending before the CIT(A) and directed the assessee to pursue the matter with him, dismissing these grounds. For consequential increase in deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) (Ground 11), the Tribunal noted this was a new claim and sent it to the AO for adjudication. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions under Section 68 by providing confirmations, bank statements, and evidence of TDS on interest. The lender company was duly incorporated, filed regular ITRs, and had sufficient shareholder funds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the deletion of the addition of Rs.5,21,484/-. The AO had examined the evidence submitted by the assessee, including copies of invoices, banking details, and compliance with notices under section 133(6). While the AO noted discrepancies in sales and purchase figures, he did not make any adverse observations regarding the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The assessment order was silent on the assessee's replies. The Tribunal noted that the AO, who initiated scrutiny based on information of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.69.81 lakh, restricted the addition to Rs.5.21 lakh, implying the assessee was not found indulging in bogus purchases to that extent. The CIT(A) had taken due cognizance of the substantial evidence, including ledger copies, bank statements, and vendor confirmations, which demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on a technicality and that the assessee, being an old trust, should have its application considered on merit. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after allowing an opportunity of hearing and requiring the assessee to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal has not provided its findings or decision on the issues raised in the appeals within the provided text. The judgment appears to be incomplete, and the operative part, including the Tribunal's reasoning and the final outcome, is missing. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what the Tribunal decided, the ratio decidendi, or the operative directions. No issue was expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The Tribunal held that the estate of a deceased individual, even with multiple executors, should be taxed as an individual at the applicable slab rates, not as an AOP at the maximum marginal rate. The surcharge levied was also found to be not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the estate of a deceased individual, even with multiple executors, should be taxed as an individual at the applicable slab rates, not as an AOP at the maximum marginal rate. The surcharge levied was also found to be not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the estate of a deceased individual, even with multiple executors, should be taxed as an individual at the applicable slab rates, not as an AOP at the maximum marginal rate. The surcharge levied was also found to be not leviable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a duplicate appeal due to technical defects in the original one and that the DR did not object. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the instant appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC, Delhi (ld. CIT(A)), had set aside the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144 read with Section 147 and referred it back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the ex-parte assessment was made without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, effective from 01/10/2024. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the ld. CIT(A)'s finding. The reasoning was that once the assessment order is set aside for a fresh assessment by the AO, any grievance related to the notices issued, including the Section 148 notice, should be taken up with the AO in the first instance as he is the primary authority. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The issue of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was implicitly not decided by the Tribunal as the entire assessment was set aside.
The Tribunal held that under Section 253(5) of the Act, it has the power to condone delay only if satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. The assessee waited for the assessment order pursuant to the Section 263 order and only filed the appeal against the Section 263 order when the subsequent assessment order was not deemed favorable. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in Office of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr and Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, emphasizing that the law of limitation binds everyone and delay should not be condoned out of generosity. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not demonstrate reasonable diligence and that waiting for a favorable assessment order before appealing the Section 263 order indicated a 'malafide' on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay of 328 days and dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Regarding the 'on-money' addition (Grounds 1, 3, 4), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that additions could only be made based on incriminating material found during the survey for specific flats, and no addition was justified on remaining flats based on presumption. The Tribunal followed the decision in Sheth Developers P.Ltd. Regarding the Section 80-IB(10) deduction (Grounds 2, 5, 6), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had examined the issue and observed that the assessee restricted its claim to units below 1000 sq. ft. and excluded units where conditions were violated. The Tribunal found that the assessee's AR demonstrated no violation as the deduction was worked out on a proportionate basis. The Tribunal relied on decisions of coordinate benches and jurisdictional High Court decisions, including Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd. and CIT v. Brahma Associates, to hold that a proportionate claim is permissible and the entire project's claim is not nullified by non-compliance of some units. The assessee's cross-objection was not pressed as the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and was therefore dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for not submitting written submissions before the CIT(A) as notices were sent to an email address other than the one provided. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had appeared ex-parte before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the pandemic period and the assessee's bonafide belief on legal advice. Similarly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was also condoned. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merit.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the prescribed time limit, as indicated by the digital signature date. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent actions taken were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment was barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Income Tax Act and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the loan from Bank of Baroda was utilized for the purchase of the 18th-floor property, and the assessee had shown rental income of Rs. 33,00,000/- for the period January to March 2014. Since the assessee had shown rental income, they were entitled to claim a deduction of interest under Section 24(b) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 76,66,066/- was upheld. On the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the difference between the agreement value and stamp duty value was less than 10%. Following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sandip Patil vs. ITO and other precedents, the Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 50C and Section 56(2)(x) (which are similar in nature to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) in this context) are curative and beneficial, applying retrospectively. The benefit of a 10% margin difference, as provided to sellers under Section 50C, should also apply to buyers under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Therefore, if the variation is within 10%, no addition can be made. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,26,58,000/- was thus upheld.
The Tribunal held that furnishing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since all the necessary particulars for the FTC were available at the time of processing the return of income and during the first appellate stage, the jurisdictional AO was directed to allow the credit.
The Tribunal held that the fact of agricultural operations being carried out on the land cannot be disregarded solely due to the failure to produce expense bills. Relying on previous decisions for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Tribunal found no significant variation in facts and set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's additional grounds regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice. It held that for cases involving search and seizure actions that are centralized, the faceless assessment regime under Section 144B is excluded, and thus, the notice issued by the JAO is valid. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground concerning the absence of DIN on the sanction, stating it is an internal communication and the notice itself bears a valid DIN. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire disallowance made in respect of Kavita Enterprises, finding no conclusive evidence of bogus purchases and noting that the AO accepted part of the purchases as genuine. For Rishabh Enterprises, GG Engineering, and Jain Colour Roof Industries, the Tribunal sustained the estimated disallowance at 12.50%, following its prior decision in a similar case. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground challenging the addition of Rs. 7,93,000/- for unexplained expenditure, upholding the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition, noting that the diary contained records of cash transactions and the assessee's explanation was not fully satisfactory.
The Tribunal addressed the additional grounds first, admitting them as they were legal in nature. Regarding the addition for bogus purchases, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the exchange of gold bars and the nature of entries in the cash diary related to business cash movement was accepted by the CIT(A) and was also considered in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the protective addition of Rs.13.16 crore, finding the AO's presumption of cash purchases of gold bars from Shri Suresh Poddar untenable, especially since Shri Suresh Poddar confirmed he did not deal in gold bullion. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence for the AO's presumption. Consequently, the revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief on this issue were dismissed. For AY 2022-23, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the department's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of a protective addition of Rs. 13.16 crore related to gold bar purchases, finding the AO's presumption of cash purchase from Shri Suresh Poddar untenable. The Tribunal also noted that the explanation regarding business cash movement was accepted in a related case.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the Section 148 notice, as they were legal grounds not requiring new facts. The Tribunal noted the arguments regarding Section 282A of the Act and the interpretation of 'signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form.' The Revenue contended that electronic communication under Rule 127A did not require a physical signature, citing the Chhattisgarh High Court in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union of India. The assessee countered, relying on the Allahabad High Court in Vikas Gupta v. Union of India, arguing that 'signed' is a mandatory conjunctive requirement. The Tribunal observed that Section 282A(1) uses 'and' to connect 'signed' and 'issued in paper form', but 'or' before 'communicated in electronic form' indicates an alternative mode. Therefore, for electronic communication, authentication follows prescribed rules, not necessarily a physical signature. The Tribunal found the assessee's contention regarding the absence of a physical signature to be unsustainable for electronically communicated documents. The Tribunal also noted that while the assessee relied on a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, the Revenue pointed to a contrary Single Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle that a Division Bench decision is generally binding over a Single Bench decision, and a later decision prevails over an earlier one. However, the Tribunal did not make a final determination on the validity of the Section 148 notice in this part of the judgment, indicating it was still under adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the Section 148 notice were legal in nature and did not require new facts. The Tribunal admitted these grounds for adjudication, relying on the Supreme Court decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the admissibility of these grounds. The judgment then extensively discussed principles of statutory interpretation, particularly concerning the conjunctions 'and' and 'or' in Section 282A(1) of the Act and Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's contention regarding the absence of a physical signature for electronically communicated documents was unsustainable, as neither Section 282A(1) nor Rule 127A mandates a physical signature for such documents. The Tribunal found that the document in question was issued in electronic form and complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Vikas Gupta (Supra) and Bharat Krishi Kendra (Supra), stating that the later decision would prevail. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases of doubt or where the language is capable of more than one meaning, the interpretation favorable to the assessee should be adopted, citing CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. The Tribunal's specific findings on the additions related to scrap sales, piling business, and murrum expenses, as well as the operative directions, are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the discussion on the Section 148 notice and statutory interpretation suggests a focus on procedural validity.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the issue of scrap sale in cash and cash income from piling work (Grounds 3 & 5 of Assessee, Grounds 1-6 of Revenue): The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Assessee on this issue is partly allowed, and the appeal of the Department is dismissed. This implies that the CIT(A)'s decision to provide partial relief by estimating unaccounted income as business income was upheld to some extent, but the Revenue's contention that the entire income should be treated as profit was rejected. The Tribunal referred to its detailed order for AY 2016-17, indicating a consistent approach. Regarding the issue of out-of-books cash expenses (murrum expenses) (Ground 4 of Assessee, Grounds 7-11 of Revenue): The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Assessee on this issue is allowed, and the appeal of the Department is dismissed. This means the CIT(A)'s decision to provide relief on these expenses was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. The Tribunal followed its detailed order for AY 2016-17, suggesting that the AO's addition or estimation was not sustained. Regarding alleged bogus salary and professional fees (Ground 2 of Assessee, Ground 12 of Revenue): The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Assessee on this issue is allowed, and that of the Department is dismissed. This indicates that the CIT(A)'s relief was in favor of the assessee, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The decision for AY 2017-18 was followed. The Tribunal also noted that for AY 2022-23, the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the Department's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance made in respect of alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 101,03,67,615/-. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance made by the AO in respect of 5 parties, including Hella Infra Market P. Ltd., as per the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the issue of scrap sale in cash and cash income from piling work (Grounds 3 & 5 of Assessee, Grounds 1-6 of Revenue): The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Assessee on this issue is partly allowed, and the appeal of the Department is dismissed. This implies that the CIT(A)'s decision to provide partial relief by estimating unaccounted income as business income was upheld to some extent, but the Revenue's contention that the entire income should be treated as profit was rejected. The Tribunal referred to its detailed order for AY 2016-17, indicating a consistent approach. Regarding the issue of out-of-books cash expenses (murrum expenses) (Ground 4 of Assessee, Grounds 7-11 of Revenue): The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Assessee on this issue is allowed, and the appeal of the Department is dismissed. This means the CIT(A)'s decision to provide relief on these expenses was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. The Tribunal followed its detailed order for AY 2016-17, suggesting that the AO's addition or estimation was not sustained. Regarding alleged bogus salary and professional fees (Ground 2 of Assessee, Ground 12 of Revenue): The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Assessee on this issue is allowed, and that of the Department is dismissed. This indicates that the CIT(A)'s relief was in favor of the assessee, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The decision for AY 2017-18 was followed. The Tribunal also noted that for AY 2022-23, the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the Department's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance made in respect of alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 101,03,67,615/-. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance made by the AO in respect of 5 parties, including Hella Infra Market P. Ltd., as per the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of additions made on account of cash income from scrap sale and piling business. For AY 2016-17, the assessee argued for deletion of additions, while the Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the additions to a profit element of 8.56% and should have considered the entire income as profit. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier order for AY 2019-20 concerning similar issues, confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on this point, dismissing both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals on this specific issue. Regarding the additional grounds challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice, the Tribunal admitted these legal grounds as they did not require new facts. However, the judgment indicates that these grounds were dismissed for AY 2019-20 and, as the facts remained the same for the impugned assessment years, they were also dismissed for the current appeals. The Tribunal also dealt with issues related to alleged bogus purchases and unexplained money as per a cash diary, confirming the CIT(A)'s order on the cash diary issue and dismissing appeals by both parties. For bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire disallowance for one party (Mahaveer Steel) and provided findings on another party (BIUM Industries Ltd.).
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of scrap sales in cash and piling work. For other issues, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, or vice-versa, depending on the specific ground.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of scrap sales in cash and piling work. For other issues, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, or vice-versa, depending on the specific ground.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of scrap sales in cash and piling work. For other issues, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, or vice-versa, depending on the specific ground.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The core dispute revolved around additions made by the AO under Sections 69A and 69C, which were then modified by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the additions were wrongly made or excessive, while the revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the additions and providing relief. The assessee also raised a legal ground regarding the validity of Section 148 notices. The judgment excerpt provided focuses heavily on the arguments concerning the validity of Section 148 notices, with both parties citing various High Court decisions. The assessee relied on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Vikas Gupta, emphasizing the mandatory signature requirement under Section 282A(1). The Revenue countered by citing the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Bharat Krishi Kendra, arguing that an approval bearing the name and designation is sufficient for electronic documents. The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting views and the assessee's reliance on a division bench decision over a single-judge bench decision, and the principle of favouring the assessee in case of doubt. The operative part of the decision regarding the substantive grounds of appeal (Sections 69A and 69C) is not fully captured in the provided text.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of scrap sales in cash and piling work. For other issues, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, or vice-versa, depending on the specific ground.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of scrap sales in cash and piling work. For other issues, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, or vice-versa, depending on the specific ground.
The Tribunal decided to admit the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the Section 148 notice, as they were legal grounds not requiring new facts. The Tribunal's decision on the substantive issues of scrap sale, piling business, and murrum expenses is not recorded in the provided excerpt. The excerpt focuses heavily on the arguments presented regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice and the interpretation of Section 282A of the Act concerning the authentication of notices. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the admissibility of the additional grounds. The arguments presented by both sides regarding Section 282A and its application to electronic vs. paper notices, and the reliance on various High Court judgments (Vikas Gupta, Bharat Krishi Kendra, CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf) are detailed, but the Tribunal's final decision on these specific legal points, and consequently on the substantive grounds of appeal, is not provided in this segment of the judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit on cash income from scrap sales and piling business at 8.56%. The Tribunal found that the AO had established that the entire amounts of Rs. 25,79,334/- and Rs. 77,48,409/- represented income from scrap sales and piling business, respectively, and that incidental expenses were already accounted for. Therefore, the entire amounts should be treated as income. Regarding the 'murrum expenses' (out of books cash expenditures) of Rs. 6,42,71,657/-, the Tribunal noted the extensive evidence found, including WhatsApp chats, loose papers, and trial balances, indicating that 'murrum' was a code word for unaccounted cash payments. The Tribunal found that the AO had established the exact amounts of these expenses and that there was no scope for estimation as done by the CIT(A). The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the Section 148 notice, as they were legal grounds. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue of the Section 148 notice in light of the admitted additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in treating the unaccounted cash income from scrap sales and piling business as business income rather than unexplained income under Section 69A. The reasoning was that if cash transactions are found, it is the profit derived from such transactions that should be taxed, not the entire amount as unexplained income. The Tribunal relied on decisions in ACIT v. Devendra Rao Gourkanti and Shri Bhuwan Goyal vs. DCIT. Consequently, for AY 2016-17, the addition of Rs. 25,79,334/- was restricted to Rs. 2,20,791/- (8.56% of gross receipts), and the addition of Rs. 77,48,409/- was similarly restricted. Regarding murrum expenses, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition made under Section 69C and directed that 5% of such expenses be brought to tax as business income. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice, as the appeals were decided on merits concerning the additions.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the addition for bogus purchases. Regarding the cash diary entries and alleged gold bar purchases, the Tribunal noted that Shri Suresh Poddar, mentioned in the diary, does not deal in gold bullion but only diamonds, as confirmed by him and previously held by the Tribunal. The explanation that the 1 kg gold bar found during search was part of an exchange for a previously purchased 5 kg lot, where one bar was not to satisfaction, was found plausible. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence for the AO's presumption of cash purchases of gold bars or sale of excess bars. Consequently, the noting in the diary in the name of Shri Suresh Poddar, on both receipt and payment sides, could not be equated with cash gold bar purchases. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the protective addition of Rs.13.16 crore, noting that similar explanations were accepted in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2022-23 was partly allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 13.16 crore related to gold bars. The Tribunal noted that Shri Suresh Poddar, from whom the gold was allegedly purchased, deals only in diamonds, not gold bullion, as confirmed by him and previous Tribunal findings. The evidence of gold bar photos sent via WhatsApp and one gold bar found during search was considered insufficient to presume the purchase of all 10 gold bars in cash, especially since no excess gold was found and no profit on presumed sales was taxed. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the gold bar plausible and confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the protective addition. The Tribunal also noted that the cash diary entries in the name of Shri Suresh Poddar were related to business cash movement and had been accepted in a related case. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the protective addition of Rs. 13.16 crore. For AY 2022-23, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the department's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the additional grounds first. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer as required by Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Notification 18 of 2022. This ground was admitted and adjudicated in favour of the assessee. Regarding the substantive grounds, the Tribunal dealt with the issue of gold bars and the related cash diary entries. The Tribunal noted that Shri Suresh Poddar, mentioned in the diary, does not deal in gold bullion but only diamonds, as confirmed by him. The AO's presumption of cash purchase of gold bars from Shri Suresh Poddar was found not tenable. The explanation that one gold bar was sought to be exchanged was considered plausible, especially since no excess gold bars were found. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the protective addition of Rs.13.16 crore related to gold bars and cash diary entries, finding that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted it. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue. Consequently, for AY 2022-23, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the department's appeal was dismissed.