Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 4 of 11
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition was deleted by a prior order of the Tribunal, stating the proprietor had already declared the amount as income. The issue of two PAN numbers (company and proprietor) and the linkage of the bank account required further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied solely on third-party information without independent investigation. While acknowledging the possibility of revenue leakage, it found that disallowing 100% of purchases was excessive, especially since sales were accepted and the assessee had shown a good gross profit.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69 of the Act were unsustainable. The reasoning was based on the principle that relying solely on third-party information without providing the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents and access the incriminating material violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal cited several High Court and Supreme Court judgments, including CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. and H.R. Mehta v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai, which emphasize that denying the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon renders the assessment order a nullity. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that they were deprived of an effective opportunity to verify the veracity of the documents and rebut the allegations. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made under Section 69. The ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 153C without DIN was dismissed as not pressed. All grounds assailing the addition under Section 69 were allowed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment in some cases were passed under Section 144, but the CIT(A) decided the issue on merits, and the Tribunal's decision on the merits would apply.
The Tribunal held that interest income received from cooperative banks, which are registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal distinguished this from the Apex Court's ruling in Totgar's case, which dealt with interest income from members.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the addition of ₹2,24,75,072/- as unexplained expenditure, finding the purchases to be non-genuine. The reopening of assessment was also held to be valid, based on tangible material.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act. The reasoning was based on the finding that the assessee had furnished various documents to substantiate the sale of shares, which were not found to be false, fabricated, or fictitious. The AO relied on third-party statements without alleging the assessee's participation in price rigging. The Tribunal followed the decision of a coordinate bench in similar cases involving the assessee's brothers, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. This decision noted that the SEBI order exonerated the assessee from price rigging. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Surendra B. Jiwrajka also held that there was no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT regarding the absence of incriminating material and the cognizance taken of the SEBI order. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in SEBI v/s Kishore R. Ajmera was on a different issue. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were allowed. The operative direction was to dismiss the revenue's appeals and allow the assessee's cross-objections.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee's cross-objection for AY 2012-13 was allowed, following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surendra B. Jiwrajka's case, which held that for an assessment under Section 153A, the prerequisite of finding incriminating material during the search must be fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the authorities below correctly held this prerequisite was not met. Regarding the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds. It respectfully followed the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's brothers' cases, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal noted that the SEBI order exonerated the assessee from price rigging, and the Assessee had furnished various documents to support the sale of shares, which were not found to be false or fabricated. The AO relied on third-party statements without alleging the Assessee's participation in price rigging. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were deleted, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal also noted that the SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera decision relied upon by the Revenue was in respect of a different issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was identical to that of his brothers, whose appeals were decided by a coordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench had considered the SEBI order which exonerated the assessee from price rigging. The Hon'ble High Court, in the case of Surendra B. Jiwrajka, had held that there was no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT regarding the absence of incriminating material, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The High Court also found no fault with the authorities taking cognizance of the SEBI order. The Tribunal found no basis to deviate from these consistent findings. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, allowing the assessee's cross-objections for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, and dismissing the Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessee maintained audited books of accounts, GST returns, and had a sufficient cash balance as per the cash book before demonetization. Since the Assessing Officer did not doubt other cash deposits from business sales, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of INR 6,66,000 under Section 69A was unsustainable and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal held that without a valid demand notice, no demand is enforceable. Since the original demand notice u/s 156 specified zero demand, no interest could be levied under Section 220(2) for a period prior to the rectification order that created a demand. The levy of interest was deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a coordinate bench in the cases of the assessee's brothers, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Surendra B. Jiwrajka. The Tribunal noted that the factual matrix in the present case was identical to those cases. The Tribunal further referred to the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surendra B. Jiwrajka's case, which held that there was no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT regarding the absence of incriminating material during the search, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The High Court also found no fault with the authorities taking cognizance of the SEBI order in exonerating the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to deviate from the established conclusion, especially since the SEBI order had exonerated the assessee from price rigging. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order deleting the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, and similarly for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 based on the Abhisar Buildwell decision. Therefore, the revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal observed that the assessees failed to provide supporting documentary evidence to both the AO and CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merits, the Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, granted the assessees another opportunity to present their case and evidence before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, quantitative details, stock register, bank statements, and affidavits from suppliers. The Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries or point out defects. Therefore, the entire addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of accounts as justified due to non-compliance with Section 145(3) conditions. However, it found the 8% net profit estimation to be excessive and, considering past profitability and judicial precedents, directed the AO to recompute the net profit at 5% of the turnover, allowing specified deductions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the expenses. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had brought on record relevant details, including name, address, PAN of the parties, bills, purchase register, ledger account, and bank statements, demonstrating the genuineness of the expenditure. The AO had failed to make any independent inquiry to negate the assessee's contentions and relied solely on suspicion and guesswork. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that suspicion cannot take the place of evidence, citing judicial decisions. It was also noted that all payments were made through banking channels, and TDS was duly deducted. The assessment was made under Section 153A consequent to a search, but no adverse incriminating materials were found regarding these payments. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO lacked substance and merit. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s appellate order, which was upheld. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue was dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as the assessee had been granted full relief on merits.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as mandated by Section 151(ii) for reassessments initiated after three years. This vitiated the jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the material used against them and was denied the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the additions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on third-party statements not provided to the assessee and not tested by cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be automatically extended to a third party without corroboration.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under section 69C of the Act were unsustainable. The primary reasoning was that the additions were based solely on uncorroborated third-party material, specifically the statements of Shri Imran Ansari and data from an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive found in his possession. No incriminating material was found from the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that such third-party statements and electronic records, without independent corroborative evidence directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, do not constitute credible evidence for sustaining an addition. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross-examination permitted, which violates the principles of natural justice. Citing the Supreme Court decision in *Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE*, the Tribunal stated that failure to grant an opportunity for cross-examination renders the order a nullity. As the additions were made in violation of natural justice and lacked sufficient corroborative evidence, the addition of ₹1,00,000/- for assessment year 2017-18 was deleted. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other two assessment years. The grounds related to the DIN issue and satisfaction note were rendered academic due to the relief granted on merit.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders, restoring the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders, restoring the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders, restoring the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal held that the amount declared under the PMGKY scheme is not to be included in the total income for any assessment year as per statutory provisions and CBDT circulars. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that showing this amount in the computation of income was an inadvertent mistake.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on third-party statements not provided to the assessee and not tested by cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be automatically extended to a third party without corroboration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal noted that while the purchase of shares was not doubted, the date of allotment/purchase was not proven, impacting the classification of capital gains. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance based solely on the lender's return showing a loss, without examining the source of borrowing, was not justified. Similarly, the disallowance of expenses was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had utterly failed to adjudicate the issues before him in clear violation of Section 250 of the Act. The appellate order was found to be non-speaking, as neither the issues, assessment order contents, assessee's submissions, nor grounds of appeal were clearly adjudicated. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue of addition under Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD, which was not the subject matter of the appeal before him. Furthermore, the CIT(A) upheld the addition without referring to the assessee's various submissions and failed to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal. The Tribunal found no independent application of mind or objective analysis of the facts and circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for passing a de novo appellate order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This decision was made in the substantial interest of justice and was not to be construed as an expression on the merits of the dispute. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act and did not make further inquiry as permitted by Section 250(4).
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on third-party statements not provided to the assessee and not tested by cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be automatically extended to a third party without corroboration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, quantitative details, stock register, bank statements, and affidavits from suppliers. The Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries or point out defects. Therefore, the entire addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was justified. It followed a previous ITAT decision concerning the co-developer, stating that no additions could be made for on-money or extrapolation in this case.
The Tribunal noted a SEBI report which found no manipulation in the trading of the shares. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the additions and remitted the issue back to the AO to consider the SEBI report.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders, restoring the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue had become academic and did not require adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to be heard due to circumstances beyond their control, violating principles of natural justice. The ex parte assessment and appellate orders were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the claim for deduction u/s. 54F.
The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals. Regarding the validity of reopening for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order approving the reopening. The reassessment order was passed on the deceased's PAN, but the Tribunal did not explicitly address the violation of Section 159. The denial of deduction under Section 35AC was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the donation to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust, which was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries for bogus donations. The Tribunal noted that the trust's recognition was withdrawn and its registration cancelled. The assessee's submission of donation receipts, bank statements, and Form 58 was insufficient to prove the genuineness of the donation in light of the trust's fraudulent activities. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGA was upheld. The assessee failed to produce any certificate contemplated under Section 80GGA to demonstrate the eligibility of M/s St. Jude India Child Care Centre. The institution was neither a scientific research association nor engaged in rural development, and the assessee did not comply with opportunities to provide substantiating evidence. The ratio decidendi is that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of donations and the eligibility of the donee institution for the claimed deduction, which the assessee failed to do in both instances.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of 'on-money' received and on account of extrapolation could not be justified. The reasoning was based on the fact that the ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of GHL (the joint development partner of the assessee), had categorically held that neither any addition on account of 'on-money' received nor on account of extrapolation could be made. Since the outcome in the case of GHL had a direct bearing on the instant appeals, which were inextricably linked, the Tribunal concluded that no addition could be justified on either the 'on-money' issue or the extrapolation. The Tribunal upheld the impugned appellate order and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. The addition of Rs. 2,42,12,902/- for AY 2017-18 was allowed to the assessee. The grounds raised in other years were identical and were also allowed following similar reasoning. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was justified. It followed a previous ITAT decision concerning the co-developer, stating that no additions could be made for on-money or extrapolation in this case.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of 'on-money' receipts and extrapolation was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 13,95,000/- (assessee's share in alleged cash receipts found during survey on GHL) after considering the Joint Development Agreement. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had no responsibility for marketing flats or receiving consideration, and GHL was solely responsible for these aspects. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of GHL (the joint development partner of the assessee), where it was held that neither any addition on account of 'on-money' received nor on account of extrapolation could be made. Since the facts were inextricably linked, the Tribunal respectfully followed the decision in GHL's case. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no addition could be justified either on the 'on-money' issue or extrapolation. The impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue were dismissed. The addition of Rs. 2,42,12,902/- made by the AO for AY 2017-18 on account of extrapolation was deleted.
The Tribunal held that there was substantial merit in the assessee's contentions. It is a well-settled principle that when an addition is sought to be made solely based on a third-party statement or material, the assessee must be confronted with such material and afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements are relied upon. Failure to do so vitiates the assessment. In this case, the alleged incriminating material, including a pen drive, excel sheets, and statements, emanated exclusively from third-party premises, and no document evidencing cash payment by the assessee was found. Mere entries in a third-party excel sheet cannot constitute substantive evidence without corroboration. Neither the pen drive nor the statements of Shri Imran Ansari or Shri Tabrez Shaikh were supplied to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination granted. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, resulting in a breach of the principles of natural justice. Relying on various precedents, including Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE and CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd., the Tribunal deleted the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, grounds raised by the assessee were allowed on merits for both assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of interest under Section 244A to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of specific judicial precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own case for similar issues.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from the investigation wing concerning M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust, which was found to be involved in providing bogus donation entries. The AO's finding that the trust's recognition was withdrawn and its registration cancelled, coupled with admissions from entry providers and donors, indicated the bogus nature of the transactions. The assessee failed to discharge its onus to substantiate the genuineness of the donation to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 35AC was upheld. Regarding assessment year 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced any certificate contemplated under Section 80GGA to demonstrate the eligibility of the donee institution, M/s St. Jude India Child Care Centre. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the claim for deduction could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGA. The issues concerning the validity of reopening and the reassessment order passed using the deceased's PAN were implicitly addressed by the Tribunal proceeding to decide the merit of the disallowances, indicating they did not find them to be fatal to the proceedings. All grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the material used against them and was denied the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the additions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence and certificates to substantiate the eligibility of the donee institutions for deduction under Section 80GGA. Therefore, the claim for deduction was not sustainable.