ITAT Raipur Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that the period granted to the assessee for responding to the notice under Section 148A(b) was unreasonably short, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the AO's order and notice under Section 148 were quashed.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application solely on technical grounds without issuing a show-cause notice or providing the assessee with an opportunity to clarify or address the perceived ineligibility. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the matter requires verification by the Assessing Officer, especially since the assessee has provided supporting documents like party ledgers and bank statements. The AO is directed to examine the claim and allow eligible TDS credit as per law.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction. It found that the assessment was made without proper transfer of jurisdiction, rendering it invalid.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee had not been properly put to notice, and an ex-parte order was passed.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was not filed within the stipulated time and was therefore non-est. The claim for exemption under Section 10(23C) was also rejected due to non-compliance with filing requirements and lack of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly considered the assessee's explanation regarding cash withdrawals from her bank accounts and past savings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found a serious procedural defect as the appeal was decided in the name of Viola Singh as an individual, not as the legal heir of her deceased mother. This was a violation of natural justice and a significant illegality in the appellate order.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee's income was unconditionally exempt under section 10(26AAB) as per CBDT Circular No. 18/2017. It stated that filing the wrong ITR form was a bona fide mistake and income tax authorities should not penalize assessees for such errors, directing the AO to allow the exemption upon filing the correct ITR form.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to the Assessing Officer (AO) lacking proper jurisdiction. The assessment was framed without valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, making it unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the pre-condition for deduction under Section 54B as the agricultural lands were used for agricultural operations in the two years preceding their transfer. The addition on account of stamp value vs. purchase value was also contested on grounds of the purchase year.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no infirmity in the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d). The Tribunal noted the assessee's continuous non-participation and failure to provide any explanation or reasonable cause for non-compliance at any stage of the proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no infirmity in the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d). The Tribunal noted the assessee's continuous non-participation and failure to provide any explanation or reasonable cause for non-compliance at any stage of the proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the benami transaction issue, forming the basis of the reassessment, was under adjudication before the Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering (ATPML), New Delhi, and the Adjudicating Authority had identified joint beneficial owners. Thus, the entire addition for unexplained investment could not be solely sustained in the assessee's hands. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, to consider the PBPT Authorities' orders and allocate the addition among the respective beneficial owners.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no infirmity in the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d). The Tribunal noted the assessee's continuous non-participation and failure to provide any explanation or reasonable cause for non-compliance at any stage of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection to the request. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemption)'s order, finding no infirmity. The assessee's failure to provide necessary documents and failure to seek adjournments were considered a lackadaisical approach.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemption)'s order, finding no infirmity. The assessee's failure to provide necessary documents and failure to seek adjournments were considered a lackadaisical approach.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the assessee did not receive physical notices as requested and was unaware of the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The Tribunal clarified that should the order for full and final settlement in “Form 4” not be passed by the designated authority, the assessee would retain the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice, as the assessee had opted out of email communication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable time to respond to the show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly notifying the assessee about the hearing, as the assessee had explicitly opted out of email communications in Form-35, while notices were sent electronically. Consequently, both the quantum appeal (ITA No. 547/RPR/2024) and the penalty appeal (ITA No. 546/RPR/2024) were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly notifying the assessee about the hearing, as the assessee had explicitly opted out of email communications in Form-35, while notices were sent electronically. Consequently, both the quantum appeal (ITA No. 547/RPR/2024) and the penalty appeal (ITA No. 546/RPR/2024) were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash from pre-demonetization sales plausible, supported by turnover details and sale register entries. However, acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide irrefutable documentary evidence during the original assessment proceedings, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to substantiate his claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate the specific ground of appeal regarding the invalidity of the assessment due to the absence of a Section 143(2) notice. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that if unpaid VAT is not charged to the Profit and Loss account, it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, as no deduction was claimed. The decision of the lower appellate authority was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of credit purchases was subsumed within the addition for cash deposits. The addition for unsecured loans was confirmed as the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders. The addition for cash deposits was partly confirmed after allowing a relief of Rs. 5 lacs by the CIT(A).

The tribunal, considering the facts presented, permitted the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal declined the assessee's request to keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance. It decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had chosen an alternate remedy under VSVS-2024. The tribunal, however, granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the final settlement order (Form 4) under VSVS-2024 is not passed by the designated authority.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. It was clarified that if the order for full and final settlement of tax arrears under 'Form 4' is not passed by the designated authority, the assessee would be at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's ESIC contribution paid after the due date, even if paid before the return filing date, is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte as the assessee had opted out of email communication but notices were sent electronically. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were unaware of the appellate proceedings due to opting out of email communication. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for understatement of net profit, unexplained capital credits, and inadmissible expenses. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these issues.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the source of cash deposits. While acknowledging the possibility of some cash savings, the Tribunal restricted the explained cash to Rs. 3,50,000/- based on CBDT instructions, sustaining the addition of the remaining amount.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had indeed disposed of the appeal without intimating the assessee about the rejection of their adjournment request. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of Section 40A(3) disallowance was unjustified as the assessee had offered additional income to cover such contraventions. Regarding the investment in a building, the Tribunal noted the assessee had agreed to offer the amount as income to buy peace and avoid litigation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' as no new material was brought on record after the original assessment. The AO's failure to consider certain material during the original assessment does not permit reopening under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of capital investment, clerical error treated as short-term capital gain, and unexplained investment required further examination. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of Section 40A(3) disallowance was unjustified as the assessee had offered additional income to cover such contraventions. Regarding the unexplained investment in a building, the Tribunal noted the assessee had agreed to offer it as income to buy peace and avoid litigation.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of Section 40A(3) disallowance was unjustified as the assessee had offered additional income to cover such contraventions. Regarding the investment in a building, the Tribunal noted the assessee had agreed to offer the amount as income to buy peace and avoid litigation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the CIT(Appeals) order was non-speaking and failed to adjudicate crucial legal grounds challenging the reassessment. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no substantial defect in the DVO's valuation report. The assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate claims that the DVO's report was arbitrary or unreasonable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee did not appear for the hearing and no application for adjournment was filed. The Senior Departmental Representative pointed out that the appeal was filed with a delay of 125 days without any application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely due to the un-condoned delay in filing.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of transportation expenses by the AO and its partial confirmation by the CIT(A) were unjustified. The Tribunal found no specific infirmity in the assessee's claim, noting that payments were made through banking channels to identified persons, duly reported in Form 26AS, and the assessee's GP/NP rates were progressive. Disallowance under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act requires specific conditions (bogus, capital/personal, or illegal expenditure) to be met, which the lower authorities failed to establish.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employee contributions to EPF and ESIC is allowable only if deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective statutes, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The fact that the assessment was processed under Section 143(1) or that the Supreme Court judgment came later does not alter this position.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting justifiable reasons. However, due to the assessee's persistent non-representation and evasive conduct, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned a 152-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee had opted out of email communication and had not received a physical copy of the CIT(A)'s order, becoming aware only through the e-portal. On merits, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had summarily upheld the A.O.'s addition without considering the reconciliation chart. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the ADDL/JCIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit fresh documentary evidence.