ITAT Nagpur Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity for a hearing, based on the assertion that the assessee did not furnish replies or evidence. The authorized representative argued there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance due to the incorrect email address.

The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was a mechanical application of the law, especially since the underlying addition was already made on a protective basis in the hands of the brother-in-law and a statement under Section 131 was recorded. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty provisions were applied without analyzing their true intent and therefore set aside the penalty of Rs. 30,000.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee gets an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, to meet the ends of justice and uphold principles of natural justice, the assessee should be granted one opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee co-operative society from bank investments made with operational funds is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it is derived from its business activities. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Totgars case was found to be distinguishable.

The ITAT held that although the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the orders were passed without hearing the assessee. To meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be given one opportunity to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant and did not provide necessary details or evidence. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief was considered unwarranted due to a lack of corroborative evidence and a failure to consider the assessee's non-filing status. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning flawed and applied judicial precedents for estimating profit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly rejected the application based on a misinterpretation of Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a provisional registration and was claiming exemption under Section 11, which is permissible. Quoting a wrong provision was not considered fatal.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant and did not provide necessary details or evidence. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief was considered unwarranted due to a lack of corroborative evidence and a failure to consider the assessee's non-filing status. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning flawed and applied judicial precedents for estimating profit.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised monetary limit of ₹ 60 lakh as per the CBDT Circular. This limit also applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal deserved to be dismissed.

The CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim for deduction under Section 35AD and carry forward of losses, finding the assessee's explanation for the delayed filing and claim to be bonafide. The appellate authorities have the power to entertain such claims.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing supporting documents, and the AO's disallowances were based on presumption rather than concrete evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the expenditure being genuine business expenses. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure was recorded in the books of account and supported by bills and IT returns of the contractors.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that Section 69C was not applicable as the expenditure was reflected in the regular books of account and the source of expenditure was evident from the books, thus failing the second limb of Section 69C.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the gross profit on unrecorded sales, rather than the entire sale proceeds. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed the addition of gross profit at an average rate.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders. To meet the ends of justice and uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The ITAT held that although the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the orders were passed without hearing the assessee. To meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be given one opportunity to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the final order was ex-parte. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back for a fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, to meet the ends of justice and uphold principles of natural justice, the assessee should be granted one opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant and did not provide necessary details or evidence. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief was considered unwarranted due to a lack of corroborative evidence and a failure to consider the assessee's non-filing status. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning flawed and applied judicial precedents for estimating profit.

The assessee's representative indicated they did not wish to press the appeal due to the department granting registration under Section 12A. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 47 days, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merit, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's brother was the proprietor of M/s. Madhuri Fuel Industries, but the business transactions were controlled by the assessee. The assessee failed to provide evidence that his brother was under medical treatment during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee used his brother to appear as the owner to suppress transactions and income.

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) did not have sufficient grounds to reject the application, especially since the assessee had provisional registration and was claiming exemptions under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. The Tribunal found that quoting a wrong provision should not be fatal to the assessee's claim. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to final registration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not appear. While acknowledging the principle that the law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give one opportunity to the assessee.

The Departmental Representative did not object to the assessee's submission. The Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's brother was the proprietor of M/s. Madhuri Fuel Industries, but the business transactions were controlled by the assessee. The assessee failed to provide evidence that his brother was under medical treatment during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee used his brother to appear as the owner to suppress transactions and income.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's brother was the proprietor of M/s. Madhuri Fuel Industries, but the business transactions were controlled by the assessee. The assessee failed to provide evidence that his brother was under medical treatment during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee used his brother to appear as the owner to suppress transactions and income.

The assessee has obtained benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and submitted the relevant forms. The Departmental Representative raised no objection. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

While the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to non-appearance was justified, to meet the ends of justice and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders. The appeals are remitted back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the order was ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

While the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to non-appearance was justified, to meet the ends of justice and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders. The appeals are remitted back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's brother was the proprietor of M/s. Madhuri Fuel Industries, but the business transactions were controlled by the assessee. The assessee failed to provide evidence that his brother was under medical treatment during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee used his brother to appear as the owner to suppress transactions and income.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was solely based on the statement of an employee, which lacks evidentiary value as it was recorded during a survey under Section 133A and not under oath. No other corroborative evidence was found to support the estimation of suppressed sales. The audited books of accounts were not found to have any defects, and no evidence of out-of-books transactions was noticed.

The AO allowed only 25% of the claimed cost of improvement due to lack of evidence, disallowing the remaining 75%. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the lack of proof, granted an additional 25% relief, allowing a total of 50% of the claimed cost of improvement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the gift from wife, setting aside the addition of Rs. 3,00,000. It also allowed grounds relating to long-term capital gains and directed the AO to allow cost of improvement and deduction under section 54F. The addition of Rs. 13,00,000 on account of cash deposits was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. Regarding the Section 69C addition, it noted that the expenses were duly recorded in the books of account, and the source was not doubted, thus Section 69C was not applicable. For the Section 37 addition, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was based solely on a retracted statement of a partner, without any corroborative evidence, contrary to CBDT circulars and judicial pronouncements. Both issues were also covered by the Tribunal's own earlier decision in the assessee's identical case for A.Y. 2020-21.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the AO's addition was based solely on an estimation from a survey statement which lacked corroborative evidence and was not a sworn statement. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that no defects were found in the assessee's audited books of accounts and that mere suspicion or estimation cannot replace proof.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee had also not appeared before the Assessing Officer. To meet the ends of justice and in adherence to natural justice principles, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, but the final order was ex-parte. To uphold natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back for fresh adjudication on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the source of the cash deposit was not properly verified by either the AO or the CIT(A). While the assessee claimed the deposit was recorded in their books and they acted as a conduit for depositors, they failed to present the relevant books of account. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not furnished sufficient details to the learned CIT(E), leading to the rejection of registration. The assessee's counsel assured that all necessary details would be provided if the case was restored. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to set aside the impugned orders and restore the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that differences in opening balances with suppliers cannot be treated as income for the relevant year, and since credit notes were accounted for in the subsequent year, additions based on them amounted to double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had found that the commission payments were explained and supported by evidence, and that the purchase of the air handling unit was genuine, supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had found that the commission payments were explained and supported by evidence, and that the purchase of the air handling unit was genuine, supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted the assessee one opportunity to substantiate their case. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.