ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(E) with all necessary documents and evidence.

The tribunal held that the NFAC is bound to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte cases. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appellate authority is bound to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte cases. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks (and scheduled banks) qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks (and scheduled banks) qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities' reasoning for denial was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society providing credit facilities to its members and not holding a banking license, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Furthermore, the interest income earned on deposits with cooperative banks is also eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal, considering the welfare nature of the Income Tax Act and the spirit of the Directive Principles of State Policy, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to rectify the shortcomings. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the source of the cash, which was not controverted by the revenue with cogent material. The lower authorities rejected the explanation on surmises and conjectures.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of its activities and compliance with applicable laws. The Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application after providing multiple opportunities for the assessee to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and the first appellate orders were passed without the assessee being heard, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of loss from house property in the revised return was a conscious action, despite being an educated individual and aware of not having paid housing loan interest. The filing of an FIR against the tax practitioner was not accepted as a valid defense.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence and adopted dilatory tactics in previous proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals without remanding the issues again, considering it would grant a 'third innings' to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Jagdishsingh A. Bindra and Darshansingh A. Bindra. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessees failed to adduce cogent evidence to disprove the findings of the CIT(A) or to bring out variations in the factual position. Citing the Supreme Court's ratio in 'Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Vs CCE' and 'Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs CIT', the Tribunal stated that when a claimant fails to adduce evidence to discharge the onus, the claim fails. Therefore, the arguments challenging the sustenance of the addition of ₹25,50,000/- were rejected. For the second issue concerning AY 2003-04, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to adduce any evidential material before the AO or the first appellate authority, despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessee failed to show how the cash flow arrived at by the AO was incorrect and that there would be no cash balance left to carry forward from AY 2002-03 due to upheld additions. The Tribunal concurred with this reasoning, finding no infirmity in the AO's order and upholding the addition of ₹18,69,194/-. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Jagdishsingh A. Bindra and Darshansingh A. Bindra. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessees failed to adduce cogent evidence to disprove the findings of the CIT(A) or to bring out variations in the factual position. Citing the Supreme Court's ratio in 'Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Vs CCE' and 'Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs CIT', the Tribunal stated that when a claimant fails to adduce evidence to discharge the onus, the claim fails. Therefore, the arguments challenging the sustenance of the addition of ₹25,50,000/- were rejected. For the second issue concerning AY 2003-04, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to adduce any evidential material before the AO or the first appellate authority, despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessee failed to show how the cash flow arrived at by the AO was incorrect and that there would be no cash balance left to carry forward from AY 2002-03 due to upheld additions. The Tribunal concurred with this reasoning, finding no infirmity in the AO's order and upholding the addition of ₹18,69,194/-. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Jagdishsingh A. Bindra and Darshansingh A. Bindra. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessees failed to adduce cogent evidence to disprove the findings of the CIT(A) or to bring out variations in the factual position. Citing the Supreme Court's ratio in 'Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Vs CCE' and 'Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs CIT', the Tribunal stated that when a claimant fails to adduce evidence to discharge the onus, the claim fails. Therefore, the arguments challenging the sustenance of the addition of ₹25,50,000/- were rejected. For the second issue concerning AY 2003-04, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to adduce any evidential material before the AO or the first appellate authority, despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessee failed to show how the cash flow arrived at by the AO was incorrect and that there would be no cash balance left to carry forward from AY 2002-03 due to upheld additions. The Tribunal concurred with this reasoning, finding no infirmity in the AO's order and upholding the addition of ₹18,69,194/-. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessees were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries. The Pr.CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 and directing a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that excess stock found during a survey is undisclosed business income and not unexplained investment, thus not taxable under Section 115BBE. However, the unrecorded expenditure on building was considered unexplained investment taxable under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal, being consequential to the quantum appeal, also needs to be considered de novo. Therefore, the matter of penalty levy was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence and adopted dilatory tactics in previous proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals without remanding the issues again, considering it would grant a 'third innings' to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of the sales to M/s. Datta Digambar Company. However, it acknowledged that some genuine agricultural activity occurred and allowed a portion of the receipts as agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice under Section 143(2) during reassessment proceedings is an incurable defect, making the assessment order void. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessee failed to provide any explanation to the show-cause notice. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee lacks merit.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide cogent material to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings. The grounds of appeal did not sufficiently challenge the Assessing Officer's approach.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify which limb of section 270A(9) was applicable and did not demonstrate how the assessee's actions fell within those clauses. Following precedent, the penalty was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the deposits represented renewed fixed deposits and not fresh unexplained money. The addition made under Section 68 was incorrect, and the requirement of Form 10B was not relevant for this specific addition.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide cogent material to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings. The grounds of appeal did not sufficiently challenge the Assessing Officer's approach.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify which limb of section 270A(9) was applicable and did not demonstrate how the assessee's actions fell within those clauses. Following precedent, the penalty was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC was justified in not condoning the significant delay as the assessee failed to provide proper reasons. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the department failed to establish a live link between the information received and the escapement of income. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal admitted the legal ground raised for the first time. It held that the assessment order, lacking a mandatory DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued.

The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction under Section 80P, even if made in a belatedly filed return or during assessment proceedings, should be considered on merits. The timing of the claim is directory, not mandatory, for deductions under Chapter VI-A.

The Tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer's office, not the assessee's place of business. Therefore, the Pune bench lacked jurisdiction.

The tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the donors. No substantiating evidence was provided to disprove the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the department failed to establish a live link between the information received and the escapement of income. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of granting relief on one issue and confirming others without proper discussion was illegal and unreasonable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte due to the assessee's absence, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, especially when the returned income was accepted without any additions or disallowances. The Tribunal relied on the decision in SAS Pharmaceuticals.

The Tribunal held that deduction for employees' contribution to ESIC and PF is allowable only if paid by the due date prescribed under the respective statutes, not by the due date for filing the return. The Tribunal also upheld the jurisdiction of the officer who filed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock and cash found during the survey were business income, as they were recorded in the books of account as of the financial year-end. Therefore, taxing them under Section 115BBE was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock and cash found during the survey were business income, as they were recorded in the books of account as of the financial year-end. Therefore, taxing them under Section 115BBE was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest as the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessees. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the PCIT were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte due to the assessee's absence, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte due to the assessee's absence, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case and evidence before the CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest as the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessees. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the PCIT were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest as the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessees. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the PCIT were unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds required their assistance, which was absent before the NFAC. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest as the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessees. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the PCIT were unsustainable.