ITAT Nagpur Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 29-day delay in filing the appeal, citing insufficient staff and lack of knowledge of IT proceedings as reasons. The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions regarding the penalty acceptable and quashed the penalty order of ₹30,000. For the second appeal concerning a penalty of ₹7,78,502 under section 270A, the Tribunal noted a revised audit report showing the claimed deduction was in accordance with the report and therefore quashed this penalty as well.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were flawed as they incorrectly invoked the proviso to Section 147 without a prior assessment under Section 143(3) or 147. The approval for reopening was also found to be lacking proper details.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were not properly documented, and the approval for reopening was granted without verifying the applicability of the proviso to Section 147. The Tribunal noted that no assessment under Section 143(3) had been made previously, which is a prerequisite for invoking the proviso.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lapse in not appearing, decided to grant one opportunity based on the principles of natural justice. The impugned ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from its investments, made from operational funds to maintain liquidity, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on various precedents, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 147, which requires a prior assessment under Section 143(3) or 147, was not applicable as no such assessment had been made. Therefore, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to file a condonation application with an affidavit and appear personally.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which allows reopening without prior assessment if material facts are not disclosed, was not applicable as the AO's reasons for reopening did not establish this condition. The impounded document was not directly linked to the assessee's income, and the AO failed to prove the commission was earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 29-day delay in filing the appeal, citing insufficient staff and lack of knowledge of IT proceedings as reasons. The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions regarding the penalty acceptable and quashed the penalty order of ₹30,000. For the second appeal concerning a penalty of ₹7,78,502 under section 270A, the Tribunal noted a revised audit report showing the claimed deduction was in accordance with the report and therefore quashed this penalty as well.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the CIT(A)'s findings on non-compliance, deemed it fit to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish the basic conditions for invoking Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The liabilities in question were not shown to have been allowed as a deduction in any prior year. The Tribunal found that the AO had merely doubted the genuineness of old transactions which could have been a basis for addition under Section 68, but not Section 41(1), especially as they were not recent transactions.

The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's non-compliance and lackadaisical approach, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It held that the issue of Section 80P deduction for cooperative societies, including those with nominal members, is covered by various High Court and Tribunal decisions, including those from the same bench.

The Tribunal held that the additions were due to inadvertent mistakes and bona fide omissions, not deliberate attempts to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly made additions based on impounded documents and the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was considered erroneous.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided bank statements, balance sheets, and capital account details maintained by the previous Karta, indicating withdrawals from the bank. The Tribunal also noted that the HUF members were regularly assessed to tax. Considering these facts, the Tribunal held that the addition of ₹11,00,000 under Section 69A as unexplained money was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from nominal members is derived from its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars' case.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from nominal members is derived from its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars' case.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the claim. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the order was passed ex-parte. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the 28-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing on time and that there was a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed to be admitted for hearing on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities by the CIT(A) but remained negligent. However, to follow principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a technical mistake by applying under a wrong clause of Section 80G due to inadvertence, which should not be a basis for denying registration. The assessee is directed to file a fresh application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 315 days, stating it was due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years without tangible material evidence, constituting a 'change of opinion' and thus rendering the reassessment invalid. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's action was bad in law, making the reassessment order unsustainable.

The ITAT rejected the adjournment applications, noting the assessee's negligent attitude. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A). The impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeals afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This was made subject to the condition that the assessee pays a cost of ₹15,000 for each appeal, aggregating to ₹30,000, payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, and produces evidence of payment. The assessee was also directed not to seek adjournment without a justified reason. All grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a technical mistake by applying under the wrong sub-clause of Section 80G(5)(i) due to the commencement of its activities. It was opined that this inadvertent error should not lead to denial of registration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities by the CIT(A) but remained negligent. However, to follow principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication without deciding the crucial issue of the jurisdiction for reopening. The Tribunal found that the matter required extensive factual verification and directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the issues on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing and considering all material facts and documents.

The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's non-compliance and lackadaisical approach, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities by the CIT(A) but remained negligent. However, to follow principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly made additions based on impounded documents and the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee presented a prima facie case of no obligation to pay advance tax. The CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly made additions based on impounded documents and the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society on its deposits, maintained for liquidity and operational needs, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it arises from its core business activity.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lapse in not appearing, decided to grant one opportunity based on the principles of natural justice. The impugned ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed proper details before the CIT(E) and that principles of natural justice required giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were flawed because the assessment was not made for the first time under Section 143(3) or 147, which is a prerequisite for invoking the proviso to Section 147. Therefore, the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment under the proviso was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from nominal members is derived from its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars' case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary documents for share transactions, which were conducted online through the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's name did not appear in the statements of operators, and the company in question was active and listed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments yielding exempt income, and therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were flawed as they incorrectly invoked the proviso to Section 147 without a prior assessment under Section 143(3) or 147. The approval for reopening was also found to be lacking specific dates.

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were flawed as no assessment under Section 143(3) or 147 had been made for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the proviso to Section 147 could not be invoked.

The Tribunal found the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue to be cryptic and nebulous. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal had no merit and requested dismissal. The Tribunal agreed that the appeals were without merit.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(E) and provide necessary documents.

The assessee did not press the ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). Regarding the indexed cost of improvement, the tribunal allowed the indexed cost for the years 1981-82 and 1983-84, but disallowed it for 1990-91, considering it impossible to incur such expenditure in that period.

The Tribunal noted that no steps were taken by the authorities below to verify the expenditure at the time of passing the intimation. While failure to submit a revised return is fatal and the use of the wrong return form lacks plausible explanation, only real income should be taxed. Expenses incurred are subject to verification.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the inadvertent filing before the wrong forum. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.