Loading ITAT cases…
53 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the disallowance of interest and stock valuation. However, the assessee's cross-objection regarding the confirmation of interest disallowance was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the legal heirs misled the department by not disclosing the assessee's death and by signing documents as the deceased. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Pr.CIT with directions for the legal heirs to register on the Income Tax Department portal, inform the Pr.CIT about the death, and participate in fresh revisionary proceedings with due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the documents submitted by the assessee and failed to furnish the Inspector's report, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to examine all submitted documents and evidences to grant registration in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The words 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. The Revenue did not object to the condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially when no negligence or mala fide is imputable to the assessee. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified details, including those related to cash transactions. The Tribunal also noted that Explanation 2 to Section 263, which presumes an order to be erroneous if inquiries are lacking, was not retrospective and thus not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer concerning the additional documents submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. This prevented the Assessing Officer from examining the evidence, which violates the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was ab-initio void. The Tribunal noted that to initiate reopening under section 147, the AO must have 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, which must be based on material coming into the AO's possession. The Tribunal found that the AO reopened the assessment based on findings from the Central Excise Anti-Evasion Section, which were subsequently rejected and reversed by the CESTAT in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the 'reason to believe' was not met, as it lacked a rational connection and direct nexus with the formation of belief. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat's decision in PCIT v. Ganga Glaze Tiles P. Ltd. and the coordinate ITAT Rajkot bench order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. As the reassessment itself was quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions and the additional grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, specifically interest received from deposits with co-operative banks, has been decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Rajkot, in the case of Shree Avadh Nagarik Sahakari Mandali Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from this decision, as there was no change in facts or law, and the Revenue had not presented any material to controvert the Coordinate Bench's findings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made sufficient inquiry and taken a plausible view. It also observed that the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. was not applicable to the assessee's case as it was in a different context. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,83,300/- and allowed the appeal of the assessee, respectfully following the binding judgment of the Coordinate Bench.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted reply/submissions with supporting material during the appellate proceedings, but the Ld. CIT(A) had not considered them. This led to the case not being adjudicated on merits, thus violating the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in haste due to the assessee's non-cooperation, preventing the AO from properly examining the facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was sufficiently caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and was covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Suo Moto Writ Petition, MA No.21 of 2022, which condoned delays up to a certain period and provided an additional grace period.
The Tribunal held that the cash sales were part of the assessee's core business activities and were already offered for tax. Treating them as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 3,00,000/- and directed it to be taxed under normal income tax rates.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead their case effectively before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the Ld. CIT(A) had not passed an order on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not plead their case successfully before the CIT(A) and had not submitted all documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Considering this, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that principles of natural justice and fair play mandate that an affected party be granted sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. For statistical purposes, the appeal was treated as allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Ld. DR did not raise any objection. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench, allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as the interest and dividend income were eligible. Consequently, the penalty under Section 270A was quashed as it lacked a foundation.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench, allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as the interest and dividend income were eligible. Consequently, the penalty under Section 270A was quashed as it lacked a foundation.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench, allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as the interest and dividend income were eligible. Consequently, the penalty under Section 270A was quashed as it lacked a foundation.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in haste without proper examination of facts, especially concerning the cash transactions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal, which was not objected to by the Revenue. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that notices for hearing were sent via email, but the order did not confirm service on the assessee. It acknowledged that the demerger of NIPL from NSPL was ordered by the NCLT on July 21, 2023, creating two distinct entities. The advance tax, TDS, and TCS were paid in the PAN of NIPL. The assessee requested credit for these payments in NSPL's return, as NIPL had not claimed them. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the AO's action. Considering these facts, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved an opportunity to explain its case before the lower authority. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merit, with a direction to afford the assessee an opportunity to explain the TDS, TCS, and advance tax paid, and to submit relevant details and documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in haste without proper examination of facts, especially concerning the cash transactions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the cash sales. However, to prevent potential revenue leakage due to cash transactions, a disallowance of 8% of the disputed amount was made and taxed at the normal income tax rate. The addition pertaining to the amount receivable was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry and had taken a plausible view, which cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing that the twin conditions of the AO's order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue must be satisfied for invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of maintainability of an appeal filed by a struck-off company had been decided in favor of the assessee by previous judgments. While the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper examination, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy, reliance on a consultant who failed to represent the case, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that notices from the CIT(A) may not have been properly served and the assessee deserves an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal noted that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee before the CPC made adjustments. Relying on a High Court decision, it was held that an opportunity must be given before any adjustments are made. The issue of whether the assessee, as a contractor, falls under Section 194C and whether the disallowance under Section 40a(ia) was correctly applied, was not adjudicated by the AO or CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the appellant claimed the transactions were genuine, recorded in books, and reported under SFT. They also argued for a lack of mens rea and no revenue loss. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without a remand report and set aside the order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued notices but the order did not reflect a proper opportunity of being heard being granted to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had appeared before the AO and furnished all documents. Citing the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal held that the affected party must be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to contest his stand. The objections raised by the Revenue, as noted in paragraph 7 of the order, are to be dealt with by the CIT(A). No specific finding was given on the substantive issues of whether the land was rural agricultural land or a capital asset.
The Tribunal noted that there was a delay of 234 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the assessee being a senior citizen, less educated, and unaware of online compliance systems, relying on an accountant who left the job. The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the circumstances were beyond the assessee's control and there was no mala fide intention. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the charges levied were for late filing of bills of entry and not for infringement of law, thus compensatory in nature and allowable. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and one appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and noted that the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the charges levied were for late filing of bills of entry and not for infringement of law, thus compensatory in nature and allowable. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and one appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024". The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the charges levied were for late filing of bills of entry and not for infringement of law, thus compensatory in nature and allowable. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and one appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the charges levied were for late filing of bills of entry and not for infringement of law, thus compensatory in nature and allowable. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and one appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and deeming it in the interest of justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to present his case. The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted solely as a Power of Attorney holder for the actual owner, Shri Manharsinh Jalamsinh Parmar, and had not received the sale consideration. The sale deed and the Power of Attorney document supported this contention. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order and the appellate order did not have the copy of the purchased deed, bank statement, or the Power of Attorney. The Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Vishnubhai Kanjibhai Desai, which dealt with similar facts where a POA holder was not subjected to reassessment. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition of LTCG in the hands of the assessee was erroneous. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case and file additional evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, including cash book, bank book, and PF withdrawal slips, to explain the source of the cash deposits. The deposits were explained as being from previous savings, PF withdrawals for house construction (which was postponed), and a medical emergency. While the evidence was considered sufficient, a detailed reconciliation for personal expenditure was missing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including affidavits from purchasers, land records, and sale deeds, to support the cash deposits. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's status as a senior citizen, which allows for certain amounts to be treated as explained per CBDT circulars. While some documents were self-serving, the overall evidence suggested a plausible explanation for the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay of 339 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee resided in a small village, lacked technical awareness, and only became aware of the assessment order upon receiving a demand notice, after which the appeal was filed promptly. The Tribunal found that these mitigating circumstances warranted condoning the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to allow the assessee to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not adequately consider Section 13, Explanation 2, which excludes benefits to Scheduled Castes and backward classes from the restriction under Section 13(1)(b). Given the government notification identifying the 'Satvara Community' as a backward class, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not adequately consider Section 13, Explanation 2, which excludes benefits to Scheduled Castes and backward classes from the restriction under Section 13(1)(b). Given the government notification identifying the 'Satvara Community' as a backward class, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiry and accepted a plausible view based on evidence, including the fact that the transactions were declared under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016. Therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was neither proper nor justified. Regarding the interest income of Rs. 7,821, the Tribunal noted that out of a total interest income of Rs. 10,692, Rs. 2,871 was offered for tax. The remaining Rs. 7,821 was not offered due to non-receipt of details from the bank, constituting a bona fide inadvertent omission, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found the penalty on this amount unjustified. Concerning the depreciation claim of Rs. 1,22,429, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. and the Delhi ITAT decision in Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial & Dr. Prem Hospital P. Ltd. v. ITO. It held that a mere erroneous claim, in the absence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, does not attract penalty. Since there was nothing on record to show the assessee's explanation was not bona fide or that material particulars were concealed, the penalty was not attracted. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty. However, in paragraph 10, the Tribunal stated that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present its case before the AO and set aside the order of the AO, remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication. This appears to be a contradiction with the direction to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and lack of due care but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and penalty orders were ex-parte and the assessee's counsel requested another opportunity before the lower authority. Although the assessee did not comply with notices and showed a non-responsible attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a public charitable trust and had e-filed its return declaring Nil taxable income after setting off deemed income under section 11(3) against expenses claimed under sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2). The CPC, processing under section 143(1), assessed the deemed income separately. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard, as notices were not served, and the assessee could not present its case effectively before the CIT(A). Citing the principle of natural justice and the decision in CIT v. Natwarlal Chowdary Charitable Trust, the Tribunal held that an opportunity must be provided before adjustments are made under section 143(1). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to contest its stand forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a current account entry between a closely related party and not a loan or advance, therefore not violating Section 269T. The Tribunal also noted the disclosure of the transaction in audited statements and the absence of tax evasion allegations.