ITAT Rajkot Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide reasonable cause for the 51-day delay before the CIT(A) and the 42-day delay before the ITAT. No genuine cause was established to condone these delays.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to properly verify records. The CIT(A) deleted additions without any material, and the Assessing Officer passed a best judgment assessment without proper verification. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(2)(b) specifically requires the goods to be raised or grown by the members of the society. The statement from the society's 'Mantri' confirming procurement from non-members was considered valid, distinguishing it from third-party statements.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed additions despite the assessee producing material on record. To ensure justice, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of documents.

The Tribunal, following a precedent, held that penalty for non-compliance with notices should be imposed for the first default only and not for each subsequent notice. Therefore, the penalty was restricted.

The Tribunal held that if the amount has already been disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS in the assessment proceedings, then no further demand can be raised under Section 201(1) and 201(1A). The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee's explanation of shifting responsibility to a part-time accountant was not accepted as a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance with notices and did not appear before the appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on additions made due to the legal fiction created by section 50C of the Act, as it does not automatically imply furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of past savings and disallowance of gift from wife were not supported by valid material or reasons. Therefore, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the CIT(A) had made a reasonable ad-hoc disallowance for purchases and that the assessee had provided satisfactory evidence for the loans, including bank statements and PAN details, which were considered sufficient in this case.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was validly served on the last known address, and the transfer through a sale deed constituted a valid transaction for capital gains. However, the issue of determining the sale consideration under section 50C was set aside to the AO for reference to the DVO.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a statement made during search proceedings, especially when it is retracted and not corroborated by tangible material. The Tribunal also noted that land transactions mentioned in seized documents were already considered in the assessment of another individual.

The Tribunal held that there is no time limit prescribed for filing declarations under Section 206C(1A) and the assessee filed delayed declarations due to a bona fide belief. Therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of the declarations and not be held as 'assessee-in-default'.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustainable as it was based on the same set of documents available during the original assessment, amounting to a change of opinion. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. It was rectified to reflect the correct respondent name as "D.C.I.T. Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar".

The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer had any grievance as the registration was granted. Therefore, the assessee sought withdrawal of its appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding Employees' Provident Fund contribution had been decided against the assessee and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was found to have no merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) could have issued further notices to obtain the required documents. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a further opportunity to be heard and present evidence. This was done for the ends of justice.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, considering the assessee's circumstances and the need for proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of books of accounts, the assessee's explanation for the difference in turnover was untenable. The Tribunal upheld the AO's action of treating total bank deposits as turnover and applying an 8% net profit rate, noting the assessee's own admission of a 6% net profit.

The Tribunal, following a precedent from the Delhi Tribunal, held that while non-compliance with notices warrants penalty, imposing it for each instance of default is not the intention of the legislature. The penalty should be restricted to the first default.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence (confirmation letter) and that the AO and CIT(A) failed to cross-verify the transaction with the third party before disbelieving the confirmation.

The tribunal set aside the penalty order and remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a Special Purpose Vehicle incorporated to undertake the OMT project, is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). It further clarified that operating and maintaining an existing infrastructure facility also qualifies for the deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.