ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was due to notices being sent to an inoperative email ID, which the assessee was unaware of and did not use. An affidavit was submitted confirming this fact and stating that the assessee had since changed the email ID and would take precautions in the future. The Tribunal noted that while notices were sent via email, the ex-parte order was received physically, which alerted the assessee. In the interest of justice, and without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to appear and submit replies and documents, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The grounds of appeal related to procedural fairness were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not have made the impugned addition on account of either cessation of liability under Section 41(1) or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee had provided relevant details of sundry credits, and the AO failed to discharge the onus to prove the conditions for such additions.

The Tribunal held that the increased cash sales in October 2016 were consistent with previous years due to festivals. Since the assessee's books of accounts were audited and no defects were pointed out by the AO or CIT(A), the cash deposits were considered to be out of regular sales.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was due to notices being sent to an inoperative email ID, which the assessee was unaware of and did not use. An affidavit was submitted confirming this fact and stating that the assessee had since changed the email ID and would take precautions in the future. The Tribunal noted that while notices were sent via email, the ex-parte order was received physically, which alerted the assessee. In the interest of justice, and without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to appear and submit replies and documents, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The grounds of appeal related to procedural fairness were partly allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was granted insufficient time to present its case. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with the responsibility on the assessee to prove its case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was granted insufficient time to present its case. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with the responsibility on the assessee to prove its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and is obligated to decide appeals on merits, not for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) must provide an opportunity for hearing and discuss the grounds raised.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering that the delay in filing the audit report was already condoned by the prescribed authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. This decision was made without prejudice to any other just exceptions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering that the delay in filing the audit report was already condoned by the prescribed authority.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to specify the relevant clauses (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) in the show cause notices and penalty orders vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found this to be a pure legal issue that could be decided for the first time.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as the hearing notice was issued for a Sunday, and the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate specific grounds related to this violation. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the subordinate authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to refile before the correct jurisdictional bench.

The Tribunal found that Section 115BAC does not explicitly bar the set-off of brought forward short-term capital loss. It noted that the CPC allowed set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss but disallowed short-term capital loss, possibly due to an entry in the wrong column in the return.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to specify the relevant clauses (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) in the show cause notices and penalty orders vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found this to be a pure legal issue that could be decided for the first time.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not discuss the documents submitted by the assessee, including the Trust Deed and financial statements. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was a charitable trust that had been filing returns regularly.

The Tribunal held that there were reasonable grounds for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's circumstances and the lack of investigation by the AO. Substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities.

The Tribunal held that there were reasonable grounds for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's circumstances and the lack of investigation by the AO. Substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act by not deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application was filed within the prescribed time limit, considering its existing provisional approval. The CIT(E) erred in ignoring the validity of the provisional approval.

The Tribunal held that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by passing orders without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. The NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the favorable order passed by the AO. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with other cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant society are allowed.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the taxability of dividend and its impact on capital loss was decided in favour of the assessee in identical facts in the case of the assessee's sister concern. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's view that the dividend was a return of capital and not genuine was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., concerning the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal explicitly upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance and did not leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the taxability of dividend and its impact on capital loss was decided in favour of the assessee in identical facts in the case of the assessee's sister concern. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's view that the dividend was a return of capital and not genuine was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., concerning the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal explicitly upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance and did not leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the NFAC for a fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of purchase and sale of mutual fund units were genuine and transparent, supported by bank statements and audited financial statements. The dividend received was considered exempt under Section 10(35) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 154 read with Section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act, deleting the additions. Consequently, the assessee no longer had any grievance.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC failed to consider the documentary evidence and submissions uploaded by the assessee, rendering the proceedings irregular. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and found that the non-compliance with notices was accidental. It also held that the application for 80G approval was filed within the extended time limit as per CBDT circulars.

The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 154 read with Section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act, deleting the additions. Consequently, the assessee no longer had any grievance.

The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 154 read with Section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act, deleting the additions. Consequently, the assessee no longer had any grievance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and found that the non-compliance with notices was accidental. It also held that the application for 80G approval was filed within the extended time limit as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the taxability of dividend and its impact on capital loss was decided in favour of the assessee in identical facts in the case of the assessee's sister concern. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's view that the dividend was a return of capital and not genuine was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., concerning the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal explicitly upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance and did not leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to submit requisite details without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The assessee was directed to appear and file documents without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that notices were not properly served to the appellant as service through the ITBA portal is not a valid method. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the appellate forum is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment. Therefore, the Pune Benches did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the prescribed time limit, considering the assessee had a valid provisional registration. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to treat the application as valid and verify its eligibility.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the investments represented by the opening capital were made during the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assets pertained to prior years.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the appellate forum is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. Since the Assessing Officer was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Pune Benches, the appeal was not maintainable before them.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not granting the requested personal hearing, which is mandatory under the Faceless Appeals Scheme. The matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order were the same as those accepted by the ITAT for the quantum appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the penalty appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2010-11 was not sustainable in law because the Section 148 notice was issued before obtaining the mandatory approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued the notice on March 31, 2017, at 7:53 PM, and the approval was obtained on the same date at 10:06 PM, a fact that remained unrebutted. This procedural lapse, as per the ruling in Mrs. Amina Rasool vs. ITO, renders the entire reassessment invalid. Regarding the addition of Rs. 9,55,65,676/-, the Tribunal deleted it, finding that the additions were based on "dumb" documents and alleged admissions without any substantiation. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT vs. Umesh Ishrani, which held that presumptions under Section 292C are not applicable when seized material does not itself lead to a conclusion about undisclosed income. The Tribunal also referenced CBDT circulars disallowing additions based solely on admissions without corroborative evidence. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the Section 54F deduction claim for the on-money component, citing a catena of case law and the fact that the Revenue could not dispute the link between the on-money and the capital asset sale. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach rather than a hyper-technical one. It condoned the small delays in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical treatment.