ITAT Raipur Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's reasoning was based on a misconception of law and that the AO's order was not erroneous. It also found that the PCIT failed to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard, rendering the revisionary order void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It found that the issue of lower yield was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case, and the disallowance under Section 14A was unwarranted due to the absence of exempt income and sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 43B is a deeming fiction and tax neutral in the long run. Therefore, it cannot be the basis for imposing penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when bonafide is inferred.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year, disagreeing with the CBDT circular and relying on various High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 68 as the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's legal objection regarding the jurisdiction under Section 153A for unabated assessments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions under Section 68 as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) regarding the issue of low yield.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO had not brought forth clinching material to prove the share capital was the assessee's undisclosed income. The CIT(A) had correctly reversed the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 68 as the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants with sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's legal objection regarding the jurisdiction under Section 153A for unabated assessments.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional action was unjustified as the AO had made reasonable inquiries regarding the loans and the evidence provided was sufficient. The PCIT's observations were considered to be based on suspicion and an attempt to substitute his view for that of the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. It found that the assessee had utilized the sale consideration for construction, which aligns with the object of Section 54F, and that the PCIT relied on un-confronted reports.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that treating the land as a capital asset would result in lower income for the revenue, thus not being prejudicial to its interest. The Tribunal also noted that the classification of assets as capital or business is debatable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made reasonable inquiries and arrived at a plausible conclusion regarding the assessee's income. The PCIT's revisional order was found to be lacking in diligence and reasonableness.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding routine expenses and depreciation on tippers, stating the AO's original assessment was plausible. The Tribunal did not interfere with the PCIT's direction on sundry creditors, as the assessee did not press for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO in Kolkata was without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio. Consequently, a revisional order under section 263 of the Act could not be passed against a void order.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot expand the scope of a limited scrutiny assessment and direct further inquiries on issues not specified in the original scrutiny notice. The PCIT's revisional order was deemed unsustainable as the AO had made reasonable inquiries and the assessee had provided corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of the loan was unjustified as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing banking channel evidence and repayment, despite the lender not responding to a notice. The Tribunal also found that the rejection of book results and estimation of GP was not warranted, considering the increase in turnover, specific reasons for profit fluctuation, and acceptance of lower GP rates in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the primary onus is on the Revenue to raise appropriate questions regarding the manner of deriving undisclosed income. Since the Revenue did not question the assessee on this aspect during the search or assessment, the penalty cannot be sustained.