ITAT Rajkot Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that adequate opportunity of appearance was not granted to the assessee due to short notice periods and lack of clarity on service of notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that client code modifications by brokers, without evidence of the assessee's involvement or cash movement, cannot be the sole basis for additions. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for interest and remuneration was legally tenable and the failure to rectify the mistake was due to delayed notice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the inadvertent mistake.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) disallowing the Section 80P deduction due to late filing was not permissible for AY 2019-20. The Tribunal noted that the relevant amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) disallowing the Section 80P deduction for belated filing was not permissible for the assessment year 2019-20. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. It was held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, especially when the denial of Section 11 benefits might not be a prima facie adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P solely on the basis of a belated return filing was not permissible under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) or (v) for the assessment year in question. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such denial was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) was not permissible for the assessment year in question. The denial of deduction under Section 80P solely for late filing was not covered under the specified clauses of Section 143(1)(a).

The Tribunal held that interest income cannot be taxed on a purely notional basis if it has neither accrued nor been received by the assessee. The terms of the loan agreement and the subsequent amalgamation relieved the borrower of any interest liability.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is discretionary and not mandatory. It also noted that the assessee's explanation regarding commission income from accommodation entries and the non-rejection of books of account were not adequately considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, directing a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present its case on merits. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging the lack of clarity in the initial notice and the assessee's plea for a proper hearing.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the payment dates of ESI contributions. The assessee claimed a system error led to an interchange of columns in the XML file, and the Revenue did not object to the restoration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the case or the adjournment applications filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) is obligated to pass a speaking order addressing the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the unutilized accumulated income is deemed income as per Section 11(3) of the Act. However, it directed the AO to recompute the income after verifying the assessee's claim of having already accounted for this amount by reducing its charitable application.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank account should be considered together. Following previous judgments, it ruled that the assessee is liable to be taxed only on his commission income.

The tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal request and the revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably demonstrated that investments earning exempt income were made from personal funds. This fact was also noted by the CIT(A) in a preceding year for identical investments. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was not justified.

The tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to discharge the onus to justify their declared GP ratio.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and did not appear for hearings. The assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash deposits were also contradictory.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank account should be considered together. Following previous judgments, it ruled that the assessee is liable to be taxed only on his commission income.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were in the nature of a current account with repeated receipts and payments. Therefore, considering only the peak credit for determining the deemed dividend was correct, and the PCIT's view was not tenable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had adequately explained the sources of the cash introduced by the partners. The Assessing Officer had not properly verified the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed deposited the TDS, and the credit was not reflected due to technical issues. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the necessary credit and delete the demand.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271B is discretionary and not mandatory. It also noted that if an assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure, no penalty shall be imposed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271B is discretionary and not mandatory. It also noted that if an assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure, no penalty shall be imposed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA based on a Supreme Court decision. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted. The disallowance of education cess and SHEC was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowances based on the facts and evidence presented, including the assessee's revised return and subsequent TDS deductions.

The Tribunal held that since the source of the investments was accepted as explained by the AO in the penalty proceedings, there was no justification to confirm the addition in the quantum proceedings. The earlier ex-parte order of the Tribunal was recalled and not considered.

The Tribunal held that the delay in refund was not attributable to the assessee, even though the assessee had filed a rectification application and an appeal. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee's claim of medical unfitness was not substantiated before the AO and was therefore rejected.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B is discretionary and not mandatory. Since the assessee pleaded reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts and getting them audited, the lower authorities failed to exercise their discretion properly.

The Tribunal held that due to a retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, which inserted Explanation-3 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, Education Cess is not an allowable expenditure. This amendment is applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal noted the submission of the assessee's representative. As the issue no longer required adjudication due to the refund being issued, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and did not challenge this decision before the Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the dismissal on technical grounds is upheld.