ITAT Rajkot Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as relief had been granted in their favour. Consequently, the appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs are to be dismissed. The Revenue's counsel agreed to the applicability of this circular.

The tribunal denied the adjournment, citing a recent Supreme Court judgment that such reasons are not sufficient grounds for adjournment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained investment. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, as the time limit had expired before the amendment to Section 149 became effective. Consequently, the reassessment notice and subsequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, as the time limit had expired before the amendment to Section 149 became effective. Consequently, the reassessment notice and subsequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the facts were not very clear regarding when the loan was taken. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that no addition would be warranted if no loan was taken in the current year.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the AO had not recorded proper reasons and had mechanically relied on an audit objection. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not failed to disclose material facts, thus violating the first proviso to Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 16 lakhs from Vibrant Equities was not to be disbelieved as the proprietor died in mysterious circumstances and the assessee was a creditor. For the Rs. 10.10 lakhs from Shri Arvindbhai M. Gondaliya, the Tribunal found that he, as an agriculturist with substantial landholding, could have arranged the funds, and any unexplained money should be considered in his hands, not the assessee's.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning was contradictory and that the consistent method of valuation, accepted by the department, should not be disturbed. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The assessee's advocate requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the assessee's labour income, interest expenses, and applicability of Section 14A. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash can be treated as advance tax from the date of seizure, as there was an existing tax liability due to the admitted undisclosed income. The amendment to Section 132B regarding 'existing liability' was prospective and not applicable.

The tribunal restored the issue of rental income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of evidence and the assessee's request. The tribunal dismissed the ground related to Section 54F exemption, holding that constructing a single room on multiple plots does not qualify as a new residential house.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to justify the availability of cash for investment in property, as the claim of property exchange was not supported by documentary evidence and the co-party's statements were inconsistent. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.