ITAT Rajkot Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that bank passbooks are not considered 'books of accounts' for the purpose of Section 68. Therefore, credits in the bank passbook cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under this section.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and directed the NFAC to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard by issuing physical notices. The appeal is to be decided on merits thereafter.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses claimed under Section 57 as the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with any evidence before any of the authorities. The Tribunal also confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal, respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's judgments, deleted the addition made on account of the sale of carbon credit. The appeal was allowed in part.

The Tribunal held that merely making an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, it was decided that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such cases.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The NFAC was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case with relevant materials.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses claimed under Section 57 as the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with any evidence before any of the authorities. The Tribunal also confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the income offered was related to business expenses, as evidenced by the diary and an affidavit. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in JK Chokshi vs. ACIT, the Tribunal ruled that such undisclosed income should be taxed as normal business income, not under Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was non-cooperative throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, and failed to provide any explanation or appear before the authorities, the ex-parte orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were justified. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case was followed.

The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court had quashed the assessment order. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was rendered infructuous and was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was non-cooperative throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, and failed to provide any explanation or appear before the authorities, the ex-parte orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were justified. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case was followed.

The Tribunal held that the DRP has no power to condone the delay in filing objections under Section 144C of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory conditions of filing objections simultaneously within the prescribed time, the DRP rightly dismissed the objections.

The Tribunal held that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the payments were made in violation of Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided evidence of piecemeal payments not exceeding the prescribed limit, and the AO had not established otherwise.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not verified the written submissions regarding the partnership firm's cash. Therefore, the issue of Rs. 7,00,000/- claimed to belong to M/s. Falcon Enterprise was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that no additions were made by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the revision order. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including job work challans and stock registers, to support its claim of job work materials. The AO failed to verify these documents or bring contrary material on record, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the assessee was not at fault and that the delay was unintentional. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the material on record and directed the case to be re-adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80IA must be verified in the initial year, and the revenue cannot deny it in subsequent years if not disturbed earlier. The Tribunal also found that the advertisement expenses were not claimed as an expense, so disallowance was incorrect.