Loading ITAT cases…
591 orders · Page 2 of 12
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found it necessary for a just decision to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed the binding precedent of a coordinate bench in the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, which dealt with identical facts, search material, and estimation methodology. The Tribunal noted that assessments under section 153C require incriminating material pertaining to the assessee and year, found as a result of search. In this case, there was no seized material indicating understated profit or undisclosed consideration outside the books. The entire addition was based on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage inferred from alleged circular entries, which, without supporting incriminating material, could not sustain an addition under section 153C. The Tribunal further held that even on first principles of best judgment assessment, an estimate cannot be built on pure conjecture divorced from evidence. The assessee's disclosed margin was within industry benchmarks, and in the absence of contrary material, assuming a higher undisclosed margin was inappropriate. The Tribunal directed the deletion of all additions on this score for both assessees for all years. The jurisdictional ground under section 153C was left undecided as academic.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 1,15,50,000/- received from M/s. K.K. Enterprises was not taxable as income from undisclosed sources under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the loan nature of the transaction, including the loan confirmation and bank statements, and the revenue had failed to prove otherwise. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of commission, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary details and evidence, and thus the disallowance was deleted. The Tribunal also held that the interest expenses were allowable as they were incurred for business purposes, as evidenced by the financial statements and the nature of the assessee's business activities. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on these grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 363 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the Revenue could not controvert the assessee's explanation regarding the email ID issue. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, emphasizing that refusing to condone delay could defeat the cause of justice. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds of assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation, and other issues on merits. The Tribunal found that these legal issues required verification by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the assessment records. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were permitted to furnish all supporting evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised by the assessees were held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in disturbing the plausible view adopted by the Assessing Officer regarding depreciation on goodwill. It also found no infirmity in the Assessing Officer's allowance of carry forward of losses.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, which dealt with identical facts, search material, and estimation methodology for the same group. The Tribunal found a fundamental legal infirmity in the Revenue's case under Section 153C, stating that such assessments require incriminating material pertaining to the assessee and year, found during the search. In this case, there was no seized material indicating understated profit or undisclosed consideration outside the books. The entire addition was based on presumed higher commission inferred from alleged circular nature of entries, which, without supporting material, cannot sustain an addition under Section 153C. The Tribunal reiterated that an estimate cannot be built on pure conjecture divorced from evidence, citing the Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. The assessee's disclosed margin was within industry benchmarks, and in the absence of contrary material, assuming a higher undisclosed margin was inappropriate. The Tribunal directed the deletion of all additions made on this score for all years and both assessees. The jurisdictional ground raised by the assessee under Section 153C was left undecided as academic.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions were unsustainable. It followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case involving the same group and search.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no mala fide intention on the assessee's part and citing the principle of liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. It remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration of all legal issues (including validity and limitation) and merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the revenue had not presented any evidence to establish such an intention. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to enable substantial justice. The Tribunal reasoned that refusing to condone delay could lead to meritorious matters being thrown out at the threshold, defeating the cause of justice. The ratio is that a litigant does not ordinarily benefit from lodging an appeal late, and condoning delay allows for a decision on merits. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds of assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal found that these legal issues required verification by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the assessment records. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were permitted to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate these and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised by the assessee were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals partly. The core of the dispute concerned the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the issues were covered by its findings in the assessment year 2012-13, implying a consistent approach across the years under appeal. While the judgment details the grounds of appeal and the AO's calculations, it does not explicitly state the Tribunal's detailed reasoning or findings for each specific ground in the provided excerpt. However, the operative part indicates that the appeals were "allowed partly." This suggests that some grounds were accepted in favour of the assessee, while others were not. The specific relief granted or the exact nature of the partial allowance is not detailed in the provided text, other than the general outcome. The judgment does not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no mala fide intention on the assessee's part and citing the principle of liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. It remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration of all legal issues (including validity and limitation) and merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did travel abroad twice and that expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- per trip could not be ruled out. The addition made by the AO was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's observations on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to be heard and remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the learned CIT(A) at 0.5% of alleged bogus sales are unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the facts are on all fours with the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, where similar issues arising from the same search and investigation were decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found a fundamental legal infirmity in the Revenue's case, stating that assessments under Section 153C require incriminating material pertaining to the assessee and year, which was absent. The Tribunal observed that there was no seized material indicating understated profit or undisclosed consideration. The entire edifice of the addition rested on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage inferred from alleged circular entries, which, unsupported by incriminating material, cannot sustain an addition under Section 153C. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. to caution against making estimates based on pure conjecture. Since the substantive additions were deleted, the challenge to the validity of jurisdiction under Section 153C became academic and was left undecided. The operative direction was to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of property was not complete in the financial year relevant to AY 2015-16, as full consideration was not received and possession was not handed over. Furthermore, the capital gains were offered and accepted in AY 2018-19, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no mala fide intention on the assessee's part and citing the principle of liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. It remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration of all legal issues (including validity and limitation) and merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and sufficient cause for the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal held that refusing to condone delay could result in a meritorious matter being thrown out. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including claims of orders passed beyond the limitation period, and also contested issues on merits. Considering these legal issues deserved verification by the Ld. CIT(A) with reference to assessment records, the Tribunal remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration in accordance with law. The assessees were permitted to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised by the assessees were held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 243 days, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-, considering the reasons plausible and unintentional. However, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that if an expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively to earn or protect income, it is deductible, even if the immediate cause is unrelated. However, due to lack of clarity on the nexus between interest income and overdraft expenses, and the purpose of the overdraft facility, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 363 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the revenue could not establish any such intention. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, emphasizing the need to do substantial justice by disposing of matters on merits. The Tribunal observed that procedural technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds related to limitation and other issues on merits. Considering that these legal issues required verification of assessment records, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration in accordance with law. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised by the assessees were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding no malafide intention on the part of the assessees. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal approach to condone delay to enable substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the revenue could not controvert the assessee's submission regarding the change of email address. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal observed that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds of limitation and other issues on merits. Considering that these legal issues required verification of assessment records, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding no malafide intention on the part of the assessees. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471, emphasizing that refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice, while condoning it allows for a decision on merits. The Tribunal noted that the revenue could not controvert the assessee's claim of having intimated a change in email address. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds related to the assessment order being passed beyond the period of limitation, in addition to issues contested on merits. Considering these legal issues required verification of assessment records, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised were held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the revenue could not establish any such intention. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach to condoning delay, stating that refusing to condone could defeat the cause of justice. The Tribunal held that the delay was not attributable to the assessees and that technicalities should not impede the advancement of justice. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds of assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation, and other issues on merits. Considering these legal issues required verification of assessment records, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all supporting evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate such evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed the binding precedent of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, which dealt with identical facts, search material, and estimation methodology. The Tribunal found that the assessments under Section 153C were not supported by any specific incriminating material indicating understated profits or undisclosed consideration outside the books. The entire addition was based on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage inferred from alleged circular nature of entries, which, without supporting evidence, could not sustain an addition under Section 153C. The Tribunal also noted that even on first principles of best judgment assessment, an estimate cannot be built on pure conjecture divorced from evidence. In cases where circular transactions are recorded in regular books and profit is duly reflected and taxed, no further addition is warranted without evidence of cash or other consideration outside the books. Consequently, all additions on this score were directed to be deleted for both assessees for all years. The challenge to the validity of jurisdiction under Section 153C was rendered academic and left undecided.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions were unsustainable. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal deleted the entire additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the facts were on all fours with the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, where similar issues arising from the same search and investigation were decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found no distinguishing factual or legal feature in the present cases. A fundamental legal infirmity was identified in the Revenue's case under section 153C, as there was no seized material indicating understated profit or undisclosed consideration outside the books. The entire addition rested on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage inferred from alleged circular entries, which, unsupported by incriminating material, could not sustain an addition under section 153C. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited, cautioning against pure conjecture. Since the substantive additions were deleted, the challenge to the validity of jurisdiction under section 153C became academic and was left undecided. The Tribunal directed the deletion of all additions on this score for all years and both assessees.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no mala fide intention on the assessee's part and citing the principle of liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. It remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration of all legal issues (including validity and limitation) and merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 363 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the Revenue had not established any such intention. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, emphasizing a liberal approach to do substantial justice. The Tribunal also noted that procedural technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice. On merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, and assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation, among other issues. Considering these legal issues deserved verification by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the assessment records, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were permitted to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised were held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed the binding precedent of a coordinate bench in the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, which dealt with the same search, modus operandi, seized materials, and estimation methodology. The Tribunal noted that there was no seized material indicating understated profit or additional consideration outside the books. The entire addition rested on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage inferred from alleged circular entries, which, unsupported by incriminating material, could not sustain an addition under section 153C. Even on first principles of best judgment assessment, an estimate cannot be built on pure conjecture divorced from evidence. The Tribunal found no material to show that any income beyond the disclosed margin had actually accrued, and the disclosed margin was within industry benchmarks. Therefore, the additions were directed to be deleted in full for all assessment years and for both assessees. The jurisdictional ground under section 153C was left undecided as academic.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions were unsustainable. It followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case involving the same group and search.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no mala fide intention on the assessee's part and citing the principle of liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. It remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration of all legal issues (including validity and limitation) and merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee.
The Tribunal has consolidated and is hearing these appeals. The specific decisions on the merits of each appeal are not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 363 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the revenue had not provided any evidence to establish such intention. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing that refusing to condone delay could defeat the cause of justice. The Tribunal observed that procedural laws, while meant to be construed strictly, should not be applied in a manner that hinders the advancement of justice. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds related to the assessment order being passed beyond the period of limitation, and other issues on merits. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all supporting evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate these issues and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions were unsustainable. It followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case involving the same group and search.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the learned CIT(A) at 0.5% of alleged bogus sales were unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed the binding precedent of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, which dealt with identical facts, the same search, modus operandi, seized materials, and estimation methodology. The Tribunal found that there was no seized material indicating that the profit disclosed from the impugned transactions was understated or that further consideration passed outside the books. The entire edifice of the addition rested on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage, inferred solely from the alleged circular nature of entries, which, unsupported by incriminating material, could not sustain an addition under Section 153C. Even on first principles of best judgment assessment, an estimate cannot be built on pure conjecture divorced from evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's disclosed margin was within industry benchmarks, and in the absence of contrary material, assuming a higher undisclosed margin was inappropriate. The Tribunal directed the deletion of all such additions. The jurisdictional ground raised by the assessee under Section 153C was rendered academic and left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had wrongly dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation and directed the Commissioner to decide the appeal on its merits.
The ITAT held that additions made by estimating additional income were unsustainable, as there was no incriminating material to suggest understated profits or undisclosed income beyond what was disclosed. The Tribunal followed a previous decision on identical facts and group concerns.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions were unsustainable. It followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case involving the same group and search.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions and accommodation entries were unsustainable. The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case involving the same group.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income were unsustainable, as there was no incriminating material to suggest understated profits or undisclosed income. The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on the merits of the case and relied on judgments from the High Court and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's observations on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to be heard and remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 363 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and noted that the revenue had not presented anything to establish such intent. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of condoning delay is to do substantial justice and that refusing to condone can defeat the cause of justice. The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as it was not attributable to the assessee. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds that assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation, along with other issues contested on merits. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate these in accordance with law, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeals. It observed that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and that the revenue had not presented any evidence to establish such an intention. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Tribunal emphasized that the power to condone delay is to enable courts to do substantial justice and that refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for condoning the delay, stating it was not attributable to the assessees and that strict adherence to procedural technicalities would not advance the cause of justice. Accordingly, the delay was condoned. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds related to the assessment order being passed beyond the period of limitation, in addition to other issues contested on merits. Considering these legal issues required verification of assessment records, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to be considered de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the furnished evidence in accordance with law, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard was granted. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 363 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found no malafide intention on behalf of the assessees and noted that the revenue could not controvert the assessee's submission regarding the change in email id. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to do substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds related to the assessment order being passed beyond the period of limitation, and other issues on merits. Considering these legal issues deserved verification by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to assessment records, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Bench noted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessees and that the Revenue had not presented any evidence to establish such an intention. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach to condone delay when there is a sufficient cause, to enable substantial justice. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for condoning the delay, stating that procedural technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, and that assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation, among other issues. Due to these complex legal issues requiring verification of assessment records, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to be considered de novo. The assessees were granted liberty to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and grant a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessee were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found no malafide intention on the part of the assessee and noted that the Revenue could not establish any such intention. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach to condone delays to serve the ends of justice, stating that refusing to condone could lead to meritorious matters being thrown out. The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as it was not attributable to the assessee and that strict adherence to procedural technicalities would not advance the cause of justice. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was challenging the validity of search and assessment proceedings, including grounds related to assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation. Considering these legal issues required verification of assessment records, the Tribunal remitted all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider them de novo. The assessee was permitted to furnish all evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to investigate the evidence and provide a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to the case of M/s Indrajit Properties Private Limited, where similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found a fundamental legal infirmity in the Revenue's case concerning assessments under section 153C, stating that such assessments require incriminating material pertaining to the assessee and year, found as a result of search. In this case, there was no seized material indicating understated profit or undisclosed consideration outside the books. The entire addition was based on a presumed higher commission or arbitrage inferred from alleged circular nature of entries, which, unsupported by incriminating material, could not sustain an addition under section 153C. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd., cautioning against pure conjecture divorced from evidence. The Tribunal concluded that where circular transactions are recorded in regular books and profit is duly reflected and taxed, no further addition is warranted in the absence of evidence of cash or other consideration outside the books. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of all additions on this score. The jurisdictional ground under section 153C was left undecided as it became academic.
The Tribunal held that additions made by estimating additional income based on alleged circular transactions were unsustainable. It followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case involving the same group and search.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not granting the assessee's request for a personal hearing through video conferencing, as mandated by the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.