ITAT Rajkot Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the notings were of temporary advances from declared unaccounted business income that had already been taxed and later received back. Relying on a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal treated the document as a 'dumb document'.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT instruction and judicial precedents suggest that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B is directory and not mandatory, and failure to file it along with the return should not automatically disentitle the trust from claiming exemption, especially if it has complied with other requirements. The Tribunal also noted that the report can be filed during assessment or appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions. It noted that the advances, as per the seized paper, were temporary and sourced from unaccounted business income of Rs. 7,47,00,000/-, which had already been declared in audited financial statements and taxed. The Tribunal also observed that these advances were received back by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the seized documents lacked specific information regarding the nature of transactions and that no corroborative material was presented by the Revenue to suggest these were income of the assessee. Citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, which held that a "dumb document" without corroboration should not lead to an addition, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 23,20,000/-. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground No. 4 in IT(SS) No. 09/RJT/2019.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance of sub-contract expenses was not justified as the assessee had provided supporting documents and deducted TDS. However, the ad-hoc disallowance of direct expenses was considered excessive and was restricted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's claim of being a commission agent (angadia/shroff) for ceramic manufacturers. The AO had rejected this, viewing the deposits as unexplained income. The CIT(A) had granted partial relief.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the notings were of temporary advances from declared unaccounted business income that had already been taxed and later received back. Relying on a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal treated the document as a 'dumb document'.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions. It noted that the advances, as per the seized paper, were temporary and sourced from unaccounted business income of Rs. 7,47,00,000/-, which had already been declared in audited financial statements and taxed. The Tribunal also observed that these advances were received back by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the seized documents lacked specific information regarding the nature of transactions and that no corroborative material was presented by the Revenue to suggest these were income of the assessee. Citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, which held that a "dumb document" without corroboration should not lead to an addition, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 23,20,000/-. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground No. 4 in IT(SS) No. 09/RJT/2019.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were not given sufficient time to produce beneficiary details and the beneficiaries themselves for cross-examination. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced difficulties due to notices being sent to an old consultant and technical issues with the website, which led to an ex-parte decision. Recognizing the assessee's grievances, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the notings were of temporary advances from declared unaccounted business income that had already been taxed and later received back. Relying on a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal treated the document as a 'dumb document'.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out ex-parte under section 144 of the Act, and the order from the Ld. CIT(A) was also non-speaking. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, which violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided not to comment on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to support the claim that the transaction was a transfer of rights and not a sale of land/building. The Tribunal observed that Section 50C is a deeming provision and its application is mandatory when the sale consideration is less than the stamp duty value. However, considering the arguments and the need for proper verification, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter.

The tribunal noted that the adjustment made by the CPC-AO was without prior intimation, violating the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act. The nature of the donation (corpus vs. regular) was found to be debatable and required proper examination.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal to opt for VSVS, 2024. The DR did not object to this request. The Tribunal heard both parties and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10AB, finding it to be unintentional and relying on judicial precedents emphasizing a liberal approach to condone delays in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant approval in accordance with law, after verifying the assessee's eligibility and considering the application on its merits, subject to the assessee providing all necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to be an angadia/shroff, facilitating cash deposits for ceramic manufacturers. The Revenue contended that the assessee was involved in money laundering. The judgment details the nature of angadia, shroff, hawala, and money laundering businesses. It highlights that real angadias typically do not deposit cash in their bank accounts but transfer parcels. The judgment also discusses the role of the DGCEI and the nature of cash transactions in the ceramic industry. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues of whether the assessee is an angadia/shroff, the nature of the business, and the extent of taxable income are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt. However, the arguments presented suggest a focus on the genuineness of the transactions and the assessee's role in them. The Revenue's plea is to sustain additions by applying deeming provisions, while the assessee seeks deletion of additions beyond the commission element. The operative directions are not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the appeals are before the Tribunal for a decision.

Given the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Departmental Representative's lack of objection, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders in light of this decision.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer's assessment allowing the deduction was found to be plausible and not erroneous.

The Departmental Representative raised no objection to the assessee's request not to press the appeal. Therefore, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee's previous consultant failed to inform them of the notices and orders due to an incorrect email ID being provided. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay, which was bonafide and unintentional. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not made compliance with notices issued by the AO and had a non-cooperative attitude. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant documents before the lower authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The issue regarding the mandatory DIN was not expressly decided.

The assessee's counsel prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte, making an addition of Rs. 54,13,257/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, finding no meaningful submissions or documentation from the assessee to counter the findings. The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to respond to notices, attributing it to the assessee's old age, wife's illness, and death.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and the reliance on Supreme Court judgments regarding the genuineness of activities and the scope of inquiry by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it addresses the principles of condonation of delay and perversity of findings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for 80G approval and remitted both matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details as required by the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the sale transaction as genuine in the hands of the assessee's two brothers for the same property, with identical facts and circumstances. Therefore, applying the principle of consistency and equality, the addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted.

The assessee received an order in Form No. 4 (Dispute Settled) under the scheme. The Revenue Department did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had focused on a narrow interpretation of certain objects while ignoring broader charitable objectives. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. The PCIT's view that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of inquiry was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was invalid because the sales consideration of Rs. 6,75,000/- was already offered for income in the return of income and also included in the total sales turnover. Furthermore, the property in question was held as stock-in-trade, not a capital asset, making the invocation of Section 50C of the Act illegal.

The Tribunal noted that a related appeal filed by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Therefore, the present appeal by the Revenue was deemed infructuous and not sustainable in law or facts.

The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal to avail the benefit of the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance both before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the assessee, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to plead their case.

The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] both treated the cash deposits as unexplained income and added them to the assessee's total income. The appeals were dismissed by both authorities due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide explanations.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed relevant documents before the CIT(E), but they were not considered. The ex-parte and non-speaking order was a violation of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the orders passed were ex-parte and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. While noting the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission, noting that the assessee acted as an agent for FCI and the purchases were not for its own account. Consequently, the provisions of Section 44AB were not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend the hearing before the CIT(A) because their consultant failed to inform them about the hearing notice. The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present their case before the lower authority. Therefore, the order of the lower authority was set aside.