Loading ITAT cases…
53 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that for AY 2023-24, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) correctly applied the relevant TDS provisions. The AO's disallowance of 20% and the CIT(A)'s reduction to 15% were not in accordance with the statute. The Tribunal noted that Section 194Q applies to purchases exceeding ₹50 Lakh, and the AO considered the entire purchases. The disallowance for carriage inward and labour charges should be considered under Section 194C. The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to furnish party-wise transaction details and the AO to identify specific unvouched items if proposing disallowance under Section 37(1). For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found the 8% disallowance excessive. While acknowledging that a disallowance was called for due to absence of vouchers for expenses like site expenses, business promotion, vehicle maintenance, guest house expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses, it reduced the disallowance from 8% to 6% with consequential relief, to which neither party objected. The grounds related to the correctness of the disallowance for AY 2023-24 and the reduction thereof were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) due to non-compliance and lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) reduced the net profit rate from 8% to 4.52% without cogent reasons and reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this issue, upholding the AO's estimation of 8% net profit. Regarding the addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's argument that no further addition can be made once income is estimated is not justified, as the business income computed under Chapter IV-D is routed through the profit and loss account to the balance sheet. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal remitted the issue of Section 68 addition back to the AO for fresh consideration and decision, with a strict warning against adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had incorrectly stated that Section 145 was not invoked by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had shown "reasonable cause" for the delay, citing her being out of station due to family issues. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not represented her case at any level of the lower authorities. Considering the facts, and in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and decision as per law. The CIT(A) was directed to afford sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee without unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal also stated that in case of failure by the assessee, no second leniency would be granted. The issue of the penalty itself was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) due to non-compliance and lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) reduced the net profit rate from 8% to 4.52% without cogent reasons and reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this issue, upholding the AO's estimation of 8% net profit. Regarding the addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's argument that no further addition can be made once income is estimated is not justified, as the business income computed under Chapter IV-D is routed through the profit and loss account to the balance sheet. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal remitted the issue of Section 68 addition back to the AO for fresh consideration and decision, with a strict warning against adjournments. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had incorrectly stated that Section 145 was not invoked by the AO.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2023-24, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) correctly applied the relevant TDS provisions. The AO's disallowance of 20% and the CIT(A)'s reduction to 15% were not in accordance with the statute. The Tribunal noted that Section 194Q applies to purchases exceeding ₹50 Lakh, and the AO considered the entire purchases. The disallowance for carriage inward and labour charges should be considered under Section 194C. The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to furnish party-wise transaction details and the AO to identify specific unvouched items if proposing disallowance under Section 37(1). For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found the 8% disallowance excessive. While acknowledging that a disallowance was called for due to absence of vouchers for expenses like site expenses, business promotion, vehicle maintenance, guest house expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses, it reduced the disallowance from 8% to 6% with consequential relief, to which neither party objected. The grounds related to the correctness of the disallowance for AY 2023-24 and the reduction thereof were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2023-24, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) correctly applied the relevant TDS provisions. The AO's disallowance of 20% and the CIT(A)'s reduction to 15% were not in accordance with the statute. The Tribunal noted that Section 194Q applies to purchases exceeding ₹50 Lakh, and the AO considered the entire purchases. The disallowance for carriage inward and labour charges should be considered under Section 194C. The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to furnish party-wise transaction details and the AO to identify specific unvouched items if proposing disallowance under Section 37(1). For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found the 8% disallowance excessive. While acknowledging that a disallowance was called for due to absence of vouchers for expenses like site expenses, business promotion, vehicle maintenance, guest house expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses, it reduced the disallowance from 8% to 6% with consequential relief, to which neither party objected. The grounds related to the correctness of the disallowance for AY 2023-24 and the reduction thereof were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not provide necessary evidence to the CIT(A) that the land was agricultural in nature, which is crucial for exemption under the RFCTLARR Act. The CIT(A) had observed that the Gazette Notification for the acquisition was dated January 14, 2013, which predates the RFCTLARR Act's applicability (January 1, 2014). The assessee also failed to furnish documentary evidence like land revenue records to prove the agricultural nature of the land. Consequently, the Tribunal was of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue should be set aside. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal on merit, after considering the evidence filed before the Tribunal and produced before him. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 was to be followed. The AO was to be provided an opportunity of being heard if required. The grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal against the AO's order. The AO had made additions under Section 50C and Section 68. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged these additions, alleging lack of opportunity and that the orders were based on presumption and perversity. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities. The judgment, however, does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on the issues raised. It appears to be an incomplete excerpt, as it ends mid-sentence while describing the assessee's counsel's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings, ratio, and operative directions are not ascertainable from the provided text.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee increased the salary of Manjula Sharma, the President of the Trust, by 17.3% from Rs. 7,20,000/- to Rs. 8,44,560/- without providing any documents or minutes of meetings justifying this increase. The AO's disallowance was based on the 3% increase for government employees, but the assessee also failed to provide any basis for the increased salary. Therefore, this issue was remitted back to the AO for determination of salary based on similar circumstances and comparison with salaries paid in other organizations. Regarding the increased school building rent, neither party provided a concrete basis to justify it. Consequently, this issue was also remitted back to the AO for determination of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the rent paid for running the educational institution. The Tribunal suggested that the CPWD determine the FMV of the school building. The AO was directed to pass an order without being influenced by previous orders, giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case with cogent documents and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The core of the decision rested on the interpretation of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly the phrase 'and also' in Section 147(1). The Tribunal, referencing judicial pronouncements including those from the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh, held that the Assessing Officer (AO) must assess or reassess the income that formed the basis of the 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. If this primary income is not assessed or reassessed, the AO cannot independently assess other income that comes to his notice subsequently during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that while Explanation 3 to Section 147, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, lifts the embargo on making assessments on grounds other than those for which the notice was issued, it does not override the substantive part of Section 147. Since the AO accepted the assessee's contention that the initial cash deposit of ₹18,54,700/- belonged to a partnership firm and did not make any addition on that ground, he was not empowered to independently make an addition of ₹17,63,802/- based on other bank deposits. Therefore, grounds 1 to 4 were allowed, and the addition of ₹17,63,802/- was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to allow the assessee's request to remand the case back to the AO. The purpose of this remand is to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and to make further submissions in support of her grounds of appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should not seek unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for reassessment de novo. The grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to remand the case for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that both the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were ex parte, and the assessee had failed to produce necessary details before the lower authorities. The assessee's representative claimed non-receipt of notices and requested another opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of the assessment but rather the procedural aspect of granting a fair hearing. The ratio decidendi is that where lower authorities have passed ex parte orders and there is a plausible claim of non-receipt of notices, the matter should be remanded to provide an opportunity for a hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate a reasonable cause for accepting the loan in cash, and the argument of a family arrangement was not acceptable as each assessee is independent under the Income Tax Act. The repayment of the loan did not negate the contravention at the time of acceptance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on the merits of the case after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, engaged in share trading, had taken a cash loan of Rs. 20,50,000/- from her husband. The AO referred the matter for penalty imposition under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unable to substantiate a reasonable cause for taking the unsecured loan in cash. It was highlighted that both husband and wife maintained bank accounts, questioning the necessity of taking cash. Furthermore, the husband had provided a significant loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- by cheque in the same assessment year, and the reason for the cash loan remained unexplained. The Tribunal rejected the argument of a family arrangement, stating that each assessee is independent under the Income Tax Act. The argument that the loan was repaid by cheque and lacked mala fide intention was also dismissed, as Section 269SS applies at the time of taking/accepting the loan or deposit, irrespective of subsequent repayment. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, which cancelled the penalty on the ground that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB of the Act did not disclose the relevant particulars required to be mentioned. The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 08.01.2025 clearly lacked these essential details. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal followed the judicial discipline by relying on the precedents set by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in PCIT vs. Kulwant Singh Bhatia and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Industrial Safety Products Pvt. Ltd. As the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, the cross-objections filed by the assessee, which supported the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, which cancelled the penalty on the ground that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB of the Act did not disclose the relevant particulars required to be mentioned. The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 08.01.2025 clearly lacked these essential details. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal followed the judicial discipline by relying on the precedents set by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in PCIT vs. Kulwant Singh Bhatia and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Industrial Safety Products Pvt. Ltd. As the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, the cross-objections filed by the assessee, which supported the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, which cancelled the penalty on the ground that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB of the Act did not disclose the relevant particulars required to be mentioned. The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 08.01.2025 clearly lacked these essential details. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal followed the judicial discipline by relying on the precedents set by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in PCIT vs. Kulwant Singh Bhatia and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Industrial Safety Products Pvt. Ltd. As the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, the cross-objections filed by the assessee, which supported the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed the appeal within the specific date before the ld. JCIT(A). However, considering the reasons stated by the assessee, the Tribunal condoned the delay for filing the appeal before the ld. JCIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the ld. JCIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for not condoning the delay without deciding the issue on merits. In the interests of justice and considering the arguments advanced, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the ld. JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The principle established is that when an appeal is dismissed solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, and sufficient cause for delay is demonstrated, the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before the AO or the CIT(A) and the claim under section 54B was not considered. Although the assessee filed three written submissions, they were not discussed in the appellate order, thus violating the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, as contended by the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make further submissions. The grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the remand implies that all issues will be re-examined by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not speaking and failed to address the assessee's submissions and grounds of appeal. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is a nullity and bad in law. Such a substantive illegality cannot be cured by the assessee's participation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that if the amount were to be considered income, it would fall under 'income from house property,' with potential deductions under Section 24. However, it could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal found it an admitted fact that the lease agreement was terminated, and the deposits were refunded, as supported by the assessee's bank and ledger accounts, and an affidavit. There was no forfeiture of deposits. Furthermore, no incriminating material was found during the search on the Hari Om Laxmi Narayan Group indicating any payment to the assessee, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), not Section 153C. Since the assessee did not receive rent and the lease was terminated, the addition was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 was disallowed because Form 10BB was not filed within time. The Tribunal noted that if the exemption under Section 11 is disallowed, the income of the assessee is liable to be shown only under the head 'business income', which would require determination by drawing up books of account and a Profit & Loss Account. The Tribunal found that this was not done by the JCIT, and the JCIT did not have the power to do so. The Tribunal further observed that the provisions of Section 143(1) do not provide for such an adjustment. Therefore, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was in violation of the provisions of Section 143(1) and was not permissible. The intimation issued for the impugned assessment year was accordingly quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal noted that a perusal of the assessment order clearly showed that the assessee had not produced evidence to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had also categorically mentioned the lack of corroborative evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This restoration was granted to provide the assessee an opportunity to produce all necessary evidence to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee fails to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer, the appellate authorities may restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of unexplained cash receipts to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides supporting documents. Similarly, the issue of property valuation was remanded for non-compliance with Section 55A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 442 days, citing the liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that if an original assessment has been completed under section 143(3) and the reopening is sought beyond four years, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded for reopening did not contain any mention of such a failure by the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case (ITA No.249/Pat/2023 for AY 2015-16), and also citing decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. CEAT Ltd. (2022) 449 ITR 171 (SC), the Tribunal concluded that the reopening was bad in law. Consequently, the consequential assessments were also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and not deciding all grounds on merits. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The ITAT condoned the 23-day delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the liberal approach for sufficient cause. It further held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It then set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration after providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It then set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration after providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice and relying on Supreme Court precedents. They also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to show that the assessee's activities were not covered under Section 2(15) and that the assessee had valid 12A registration. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s direction to re-examine expenses to be just, especially since the AO's method of estimated disallowance was impermissible.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154/264 is not maintainable before the Tribunal. However, to render substantial justice, liberty was granted to the assessee to challenge the original assessment order before the CIT(A) with a condonation of delay application.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have filed an application under Rule 46A for producing additional evidence before the CIT(A), which the CIT(A) denied. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the application under Rule 46A and provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had not demonstrated that the assessee's activities were not covered under Section 2(15) of the Act. Furthermore, the assessee possessed a Section 12A registration, indicating that the authority granting it had considered its activities eligible as charitable. Thus, the first ground raised by the Revenue was rejected. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was dated 12.09.2023, and the power to set aside was granted to the CIT(A) effective from 01.10.2024. Given the current date (2026), directing the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order for re-examination of expenditure to be on the right footing and not requiring interference. It was also observed that the AO's method of estimated disallowance from expenditure was impermissible, as the AO is expected to verify each expense individually. Therefore, the second issue raised by the Revenue was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to file submissions and a condonation application. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had made their orders without sufficient evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside both orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing a proper hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the need for substantial justice. It further held that the CIT(A) erred by passing ex-parte orders without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing a proper hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice. It held that the CIT(A) erred by passing ex-parte orders without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, noting the ex-parte nature of the previous order. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide sufficient opportunities for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with sufficient opportunities to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be reasonable and bonafide. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.