Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 724 days in filing the appeal, finding that a reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing within the stipulated time and that the delay was not intentional. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Considering the prayer of the assessee and in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity. Without dwelling on the merits of the case, all issues raised in the appeal were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The assessee was directed to update its contact details and file all relevant documents and submissions before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that both appeals filed by the assessee are non-maintainable. This decision was based on the observation that Form No. 36 and the grounds of appeal lacked the mandatory signature of the appellant, Mr. Balu Kashinath Pawar. The email address provided on Form No. 36 belonged to a tax practitioner, and the defect memo issued by the ITAT registry for non-compliance was not addressed. The Tribunal found no means to verify that the appeals were actually filed by the assessee, especially considering the background of fraudulent claims and the involvement of the tax practitioner. Citing decisions in Akar Auto Industries Limited, Shivjyoti Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, and Maruthi Constructions, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of the appellant's signature renders the appeals invalid. Consequently, both appeals for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, set aside the order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits. The assessee was directed to respond to notices, produce relevant documents, submissions, and evidence without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A)/NFAC was granted liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law if the assessee failed to comply. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the additions made by the AO.
On the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel requested not to press the legal issue regarding the Documents Identification Number. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed as 'not pressed'. On the second issue, the Tribunal, after considering the assessee's submissions and the placed documents (fruit purchase account statements, 7/12 extracts), was satisfied that the assessee was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling fruits, primarily mangoes. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were part of business receipts, and therefore, only the profit element should be taxed, not the gross receipts. Given the generally higher profit margins in the fruit business, the Tribunal estimated the net profit at 20% of the alleged receipts, amounting to Rs.2,69,543/-, which was sustained. The remaining addition of Rs.10,78,170/- was deleted. The finding of the CIT(A) was set aside. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 69A was not called for. Upon verification of bank statements, it was found that the transactions were indeed transfers between the assessee's Deutsche Bank and ICICI Bank accounts, occurring on 21.08.2018 and 22.01.2019. The source of these funds was the assessee's salary income, and tax had been deducted at source on this salary. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the addition was deleted. Regarding the rental income of Rs.2,50,470/-, the assessee fairly accepted earning it. The Tribunal ruled that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act barring a taxpayer from claiming the 30% standard deduction on rental income, even if the return of income was not filed. The standard deduction of 30% was calculated at Rs.75,141/-. The addition was deleted to this extent, and the remaining amount of Rs.1,75,329/- was sustained. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before it, finding reasonable cause for the same. Regarding the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the assessee contended the appeal was filed within 30 days of receiving the order and that the delay was due to the tax consultant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and settled judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and comply with hearing notices. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition of Rs.11,19,417/-.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press the legal grounds raised. Regarding the factual issue of unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of computer hardware and that the transactions were mainly on account of business activity, with some for immovable property purchase. However, due to the absence of complete details of books of account and necessary details to examine each transaction, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to estimate the Net Profit of the assessee at 8% under section 44AD of the Act. This estimation resulted in a Net Profit of Rs. 2,74,000/-. Accordingly, the finding of the CIT(A) was reversed, and an addition of Rs. 2,74,000/- was sustained, with the remaining addition being deleted. The ratio decidendi is that in the absence of proper books of account for a business, the income can be estimated as per the presumptive taxation provisions of section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings are illegal and bad in law. The Assessing Officer travelled beyond the reasons for reopening the assessment. The original reasons for reopening pertained to Time Deposits and interest income, but no addition was made on this issue. Instead, an addition was made on a new issue concerning rental income of the assessee's husband, for which no fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., which states that if the AO accepts the assessee's contention that the income for which the belief of escapement was formed has not actually escaped, it is not open for the AO to independently assess some other income without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148. Similar principles were affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT-II vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the impugned addition was deleted. The assessee succeeded on this legal issue. Remaining grounds on merit were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the transactions appearing in the impounded diary were indeed business transactions related to cash deposits and movement of cash in hand, as evidenced by the assessee's explanation and bank statements. However, due to the absence of complete details for each transaction, the Tribunal found it appropriate to estimate the income by applying a presumptive rate. Following the assessee's agreement to offer income at 8%, the Tribunal estimated the income under Section 44AD at 8% of the alleged sums. For AY 2015-16, the estimated income was calculated at Rs. 84,800/-, and for AY 2016-17, it was Rs. 3,16,432/-. The remaining addition amounts of Rs. 9,75,200/- (AY 2015-16) and Rs. 36,38,968/- (AY 2016-17) were deleted. The findings of the CIT(A) were reversed, and the relevant grounds of appeal were partly allowed. The legal issue raised by the assessee was not pressed and was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions appearing in the impounded diary were indeed business transactions related to cash deposits and movement of cash in hand, as evidenced by the assessee's explanation and bank statements. However, due to the absence of complete details for each transaction, the Tribunal found it appropriate to estimate the income by applying a presumptive rate. Following the assessee's agreement to offer income at 8%, the Tribunal estimated the income under Section 44AD at 8% of the alleged sums. For AY 2015-16, the estimated income was calculated at Rs. 84,800/-, and for AY 2016-17, it was Rs. 3,16,432/-. The remaining addition amounts of Rs. 9,75,200/- (AY 2015-16) and Rs. 36,38,968/- (AY 2016-17) were deleted. The findings of the CIT(A) were reversed, and the relevant grounds of appeal were partly allowed. The legal issue raised by the assessee was not pressed and was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It respectfully followed a previous decision by a coordinate bench in ITA No. 1496/PUN/2026, which dealt with similar claims for AY 2020-21 for the assessee and other similarly situated employees. That decision, in turn, relied on the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO. The Tribunal held that the compensation received by employees from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order was set aside. The assessee was directed to place a revised computation of income before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who was instructed to re-compute the tax liability and grant any refund after verification. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument that a similar claim had already been allowed for the preceding assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before it, noting that the Ld. DR had no specific objections. Regarding the primary issue, the Tribunal, respectfully following the observations and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others, held that a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach should be adopted when considering applications for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and no benefit was derived by causing the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was to be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case with evidence. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices, despite adequate opportunities. However, the Tribunal also recognized that there could be various reasons for non-appearance or non-compliance, which should not be overruled. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case with evidence and information. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to cooperate by submitting necessary information for an early disposal of the appeal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that both appeals filed by the assessee are non-maintainable. This decision was based on the observation that Form No. 36 and the grounds of appeal lacked the mandatory signature of the appellant, Mr. Balu Kashinath Pawar. The email address provided on Form No. 36 belonged to a tax practitioner, and the defect memo issued by the ITAT registry for non-compliance was not addressed. The Tribunal found no means to verify that the appeals were actually filed by the assessee, especially considering the background of fraudulent claims and the involvement of the tax practitioner. Citing decisions in Akar Auto Industries Limited, Shivjyoti Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, and Maruthi Constructions, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of the appellant's signature renders the appeals invalid. Consequently, both appeals for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed as non-maintainable.