Loading ITAT cases…
735 orders · Page 3 of 15
The Tribunal acknowledged the ground realities regarding an octogenarian's familiarity with electronic communication. It held that in such circumstances, an ex parte order cannot be sustained due to violation of principles of natural justice, and the matter should be decided afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to properly initiate the penalty notice by not striking off the irrelevant limb or specifically identifying the correct limb under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.
The revenue argues that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to unsecured loans, which were allegedly accommodation entries from entities managed by Shri Himanshu Verma. The revenue contends that banking transactions do not prove genuineness and the onus is on the assessee. The assessee, conversely, argues that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction and issuance of notice under section 147/148, citing issues with the satisfaction recorded and DIN generation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law and directed its deletion. The reasoning was based on the settled principle that the notice issued under Section 274 must be precise and free from ambiguity. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant portion of the notice or clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. This lack of specificity renders the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Pacific Organic Pvt. Ltd., which affirmed the principle laid down in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that the penalty cannot be sustained due to the vitiated notice. Consequently, other contentions raised by the assessee on legal aspects and merits were rendered academic. The penalty for AY 2008-09 was directed to be deleted, and this decision was applied mutatis mutandis to all other appeals.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the proper authority as per the new regime under Section 151, rendering the notice invalid. The reassessment proceedings were therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that selecting an incorrect clause in Form 10AB is a bona fide mistake and not a sufficient ground for rejection. The CIT(E) should have considered the substantive compliance of the trust and provided an opportunity to rectify the defect, as rejection on purely technical grounds violates principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that a jurisdictional defect in the reassessment proceedings, such as invalid sanction under Section 151, can be examined in an appeal arising from a Section 263 order. The Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal was cited, emphasizing that Section 151 sanction is a jurisdictional pre-condition.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance but also considered the plea of medical and family issues. The Revenue did not seriously object to a fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issues.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were based solely on third-party information without proper verification or providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses and breaches of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were based solely on third-party information without proper verification or providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses and breaches of natural justice.
The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The department appealed, arguing that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to set aside the assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report, after verification of additional evidence submitted by the assessee, did not raise adverse observations.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under section 144 due to non-compliance by the assessee. Although the assessee made some submissions before the CIT(A), additional evidence was not admitted. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate grounds of appeal. However, considering the ex-parte assessment order and the non-admission of evidence by CIT(A), the matter was restored.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not deliberate and that there was sufficient cause, considering the assessee did not receive communication from the AO. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mst. Katiji & Ors.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee, being a senior citizen, did not receive the hearing notices effectively. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently failed to appear and provide necessary documentary evidence before the assessment and appellate authorities, including the Tribunal itself. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not discharge its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The share valuation reports and the details of projects relied upon by the assessee were found to be unsubstantiated and, in some cases, involved related parties and non-commenced projects.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified due to lack of proper satisfaction and tangible material. The Tribunal also found that the loan repayment was adequately supported by documentary evidence and that similar cases had not resulted in additions. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish that the Client Code Modification was done under the assessee's instructions or that the assessee derived any benefit from it. The broker admitted the modification was done independently to save time, and there was no specific allegation of positive gain for the assessee. The Tribunal also questioned the invocation of Section 68 when the amount was not credited in the assessee's books.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte while the assessee's request for additional time was pending. Additional evidence relevant to unsecured loans has been submitted. Therefore, the matter requires fresh examination.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently failed to appear and provide necessary documentary evidence before the assessment and appellate authorities, including the Tribunal itself. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not discharge its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The share valuation reports and the details of projects relied upon by the assessee were found to be unsubstantiated and, in some cases, involved related parties and non-commenced projects.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal as they were purely legal and went to the root of the validity of the assessment order, citing the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC Ltd vs CIT. Regarding the main issue of unexplained investment, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had a statutory obligation to facilitate a cross-examination of Shri Kantilal M. Patel. The assessee could have dispelled the material acted upon by the AO only if provided an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Patel, who allegedly referred to the assessee's payment of purchase consideration in cash. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire issue to the file of the AO with a direction to allow the assessee to cross-examine Shri Patel and decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The AO was also directed to supply the statement of Shri Kantilal Patel to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that this remand should not be construed as a decision on merits. For the additional ground concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it fit to send the matter back to the AO for examination and decision after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently failed to appear and provide necessary documentary evidence before the assessment and appellate authorities, including the Tribunal itself. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not discharge its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The share valuation reports and the details of projects relied upon by the assessee were found to be unsubstantiated and, in some cases, involved related parties and non-commenced projects.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 lacked proper approval from the specified authority (Pr. CCIT instead of PCIT) as per Section 151(ii), rendering the reassessment proceedings void. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under section 270A are consequential to the quantum addition. Since the quantum addition, which was the sole basis for the penalty, has been set aside and remanded for fresh examination, the penalty cannot stand independently. The penalty was deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB as all conditions were fulfilled, including the commencement of manufacturing before the specified date and the nature of the products manufactured. The Tribunal also noted that a previous appeal for AY 2013-14, dealing with a similar issue, was allowed by the ITAT. The AO's disallowance was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the sales difference was due to VAT treatment and that the cash credits were explained by various disclosed income streams. The interest disallowance was also deleted as the assessee had sufficient own funds and the issue was outside the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval should have been obtained from a higher authority as per Section 151(ii) of the amended law. The approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was insufficient, rendering the notice invalid.
The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO, finding that the assessee failed to provide crucial details regarding the investor's bank account and director's details, which cast doubt on the transaction's genuineness. However, the ITAT, considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, found it appropriate to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were executed through the stock exchange, supported by Demat and bank trails. Non-response from counter-parties does not shift the burden back to the assessee when primary documentary evidence is provided.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was only 8 days and condoned it. Upon examining the evidence, including bank certificates and statements, the Tribunal found that the total cash deposit made in new currency notes was indeed Rs. 1,46,000. The Tribunal found no justification to confirm the addition made by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea of non-service of the intimation and lack of knowledge of the demand was supported by the circumstances. Following the ratio of Alok Kumar Mahapatra vs. ITO, it was held that a dispatch register entry is not conclusive proof of service. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to the loans. The restructuring of loans from NBFCs to the holding company was adequately explained, and the loan from the partnership firm was also supported by banking channels and repayment evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of a change of opinion, without any new tangible material. The CIT(A) had rightly relied on judicial precedents to quash the reassessment proceedings as invalid. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148/148A and the subsequent reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to properly initiate the penalty notice by not striking off the irrelevant limb or specifically identifying the correct limb under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the assessee had provided adequate documentation (invoices, shipping bills, BRCs) to substantiate the exports. The Tribunal found that the payments were received through banking channels, approved by the RBI and authorized dealer banks, and complied with RBI circulars for third-party payments.
The Tribunal held that the addition made solely on the basis of information received from investigation proceedings in another group case and third-party statements, without any cogent evidence against the assessee, particularly when the assessee denied the transactions, cannot be sustained. This was in line with previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was condonable as it was based on a bona fide cause and the assessee was actively taking steps to amend the trust deed to address the CIT(E)'s concerns. The Tribunal also noted that the rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of the 12AB registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the receipts as sale proceeds from identified customers, supported by sale bills and other documentary evidence. The mere fact that funds were routed through a cooperative society did not make it the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the receipts as sale proceeds from identified customers, supported by sale bills and other documentary evidence. The mere fact that funds were routed through a cooperative society did not make it the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the receipts as sale proceeds from identified customers, supported by sale bills and other documentary evidence. The mere fact that funds were routed through a cooperative society did not make it the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found the basis of the AO's addition to be baseless. The assessee had acquired shares and sold them, resulting in a short-term capital gain that was not exempt. The AO had not doubted the source of investment and had added the entire sale consideration without allowing the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear for the hearing and did not provide any supporting documents. The assessee claimed the interest as a capital receipt but did not offer it as income, and the explanation provided was not substantiated. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income.
The Tribunal held that when an assessee disputes the stamp duty value due to factors like defective title and encroachments, the AO should refer the matter to the DVO for determining the Fair Market Value. The AO's failure to do so, and the confirmation of this by the lower authorities, was deemed inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit was an apparent mistake. Once tax is deducted at source and reflected in Form 26AS, credit cannot be withheld due to perceived mismatches in transaction values, especially when the assessee has disclosed the transactions and claimed any resultant capital loss.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the first ground, quashing the reassessment notice. The Tribunal noted that the first notice under section 148 was issued on 29.06.2021, and the order under section 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022. Since more than three years had elapsed from the end of AY 2017-18, according to section 151(ii) of the Act, the specified authority to grant sanction for issuing the notice should have been the Pr.CCIT/CCIT, not the Pr.CIT. The Tribunal held that the sanction was not accorded by the prescribed specified authority, making the notice under section 148 invalid and ab initio void. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed. As the reassessment notice was quashed, the grounds relating to the merits of the additions were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon. The operative direction was to quash the notice and the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on third-party information without proper corroboration and without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decisions on identical issues.