ITAT Rajkot Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) were defective for clubbing both "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" without specifying the charge. It also ruled that penalties cannot be levied on additions based on estimation (deemed rent) and that penalties are not sustainable if the underlying additions (unexplained investment from seized documents) are deleted by the Tribunal, applying the maxim "Sublato fundamento cadit opus".

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it combined the charges of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' which are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is leviable only when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed by him. In this case, the assessee's claim that the foreign bank account was maintained by Mr. Mehul Nandha of Vingold LLC and that the income was from derivative transactions was not substantiated with evidence during the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided any evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty on the addition of Rs.1,04,61,096/-. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty on the deemed rental income of Rs.1,80,000/- and the disallowance of commission paid to Shri Rajesh Bhatt of Rs.3,00,000/-. The ratio decidendi is that if the assessee fails to provide substantiating evidence for their claims regarding undisclosed income or expenses during penalty proceedings, the penalty is leviable. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a senior citizen, had relied on his tax consultant who unfortunately passed away after a prolonged illness. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the sufficient cause for the delay and therefore condoned the delay. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) order was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice.

The tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not proper as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The tribunal quashed the PCIT's orders, following its own prior decision in the assessee's group cases.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's DR agreed that the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination of documents like the dissolution deed and affidavits. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's DR agreed that the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination of documents like the dissolution deed and affidavits. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not proper as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The tribunal quashed the PCIT's orders, following its own prior decision in the assessee's group cases.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it combined charges of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income', which are distinct. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating these grounds are mutually exclusive.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it combined the charges of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' which are distinct. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had erroneously merged these two limbs into a single charge, rendering the penalty proceedings bad in law.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal at the outset. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal accepted the prayer for withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the assessing officer was Rs. 1,55,000/-, which falls within the maximum amount not chargeable to tax (Rs. 2,50,000/-). Both parties agreed that this amount was within the exempted limit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a senior citizen, had relied on his tax consultant who unfortunately passed away after a prolonged illness. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the sufficient cause for the delay and therefore condoned the delay. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) order was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 44-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 255 days, noting that the mistake was by the tax consultant and not intentional. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, deeming it in the interest of justice to give the assessee a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's DR agreed that the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination of documents like the dissolution deed and affidavits. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while time limits are important, substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially in cases of non-deliberate delay. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 522 days.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the issue was not decided as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from cooperative banks on fixed deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, interest earned from nationalized banks is not eligible for such deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. For the issue concerning the addition of Rs. 23,20,000/- (related to advances from unaccounted business income), the Tribunal deleted the addition, relying on the decision in PCIT vs. Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel (Gujarat High Court). The Tribunal found that the seized documents were 'dumb documents' without specific information and lacked corroborative material. Consequently, the Tribunal held that since the addition itself was deleted, there was no basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal applied the legal maxim 'Sublato fundamento cadit opus' (foundation being removed, the structure falls), stating that if the initial action of the revenue is not in consonance with the law, subsequent consequential proceedings would also fall through. Therefore, the penalty imposed and confirmed by the lower authorities was deleted. The appeals concerning penalties under section 271AAB(1)(c) were also allowed in consequence.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and did not address the merits of the case. The assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. As the assessee is an agriculturist, advance tax was not payable on exempt income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that it was due to the tax consultant's mistake. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication as per statutory provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of natural justice.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this submission.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 634 days, holding that the delay was due to reasons attributable to the previous tax consultant and the need to find a new consultant. The Tribunal also found that the assessee now possesses all the required documents.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this submission.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. The addition based solely on a third-party affidavit, without corroboration or an opportunity for cross-examination, was unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's own affidavit, disproving the on-money payment, was ignored without reason.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the explanation provided. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking and did not decide the issue as per the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by earlier judgments of its own Coordinate Bench and Division Bench, which had decided the 'on-money' issue concerning Parijat Residency in the assessee's favor. It emphasized that additions cannot be made solely based on third-party affidavits without corroborating evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination. Finding no change in facts or law, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found merit in the assessee's submission that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance before the CIT(A) and non-service of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed his email ID and correspondence address, and notices were sent to a previous email address not belonging to him or his current consultant, leading to an ex-parte order. The reasons provided in the affidavit for condonation were considered convincing and constituted a reasonable and sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The AO issued a show cause notice on 11.10.2019 seeking details of cash deposits of Rs. 11,00,000/- by 24.10.2019, which was a very short period. The AO passed the assessment order on 18.11.2019. The Tribunal held that no reasonable and fair opportunities were allowed by the AO. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were restored to the file of the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide all evidence and information again to the AO. The grounds of appeal were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee's absence from hearings was due to non-service of notices on the correct email. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the merits of the issue and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. The AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as the AO had made necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead its case successfully before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) did not pass the order as per section 250(6) of the Act. Principles of natural justice require that the affected party be given sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead their case effectively before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) order did not comply with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that filing Form 10B during appellate proceedings can be considered sufficient compliance. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify Form 10B and allow the exemption claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) and the ex-parte order needed to be set aside. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is contrary to the policy decision of the Department as laid down in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. This Circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal to Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that although the appeal was filed within the old monetary limits, the new circular governs such appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (267 ITR 272), the Tribunal emphasized that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in the present case was less than Rs.60,00,000/-, the appeal was dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to move for recalling the order if the tax effect is found to be more than Rs.60 lakhs or if the appeal is otherwise maintainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without delving into the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for adequate hearing opportunities. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, which has already been deposited.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 203 days in filing the appeal, finding that there were mitigating circumstances to exercise discretion in favor of the assessee. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 143(3) and the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case effectively before the Ld. CIT(A), constituting a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the grounds raised, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to contest their stand forthwith. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, which the assessee had complied with. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeal was treated as allowed.

The Tribunal held that any proceeding initiated against a dead person is a nullity. Since the PCIT's revision order was passed against a non-existent assessee, it was considered bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided to be genuine. It further held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided to be genuine. It further held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging mitigating circumstances. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging that provisions of law must be strictly adhered to, the Tribunal considered the circumstances presented, including the death of the grandfather who managed the group's taxation and the subsequent absence of the compliance person. The Tribunal noted that the death certificate was placed on record and that the delay was attributed to family tension and the non-cooperation of the advocate. The Tribunal ultimately decided to condone the delay, finding sufficient cause in the presented facts. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the facts and documentary evidence concerning job work expenses and applied his mind, leading to a plausible view that was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the order of the PCIT on this issue was quashed. Concerning 'row expenses', the Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent treatment of these as revenue expenditure in past years without departmental objection. Applying the principle of consistency, and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view was plausible and consistent with past assessments. The Tribunal also distinguished between 'lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry', stating that an inadequate enquiry does not automatically give occasion for invoking Section 263. Finding that the Assessing Officer had made a plausible assessment and that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met, the Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT under Section 263 and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that no substantive addition was made in the hands of the true owner, M/s. Om Jewellers. Since the Department failed to make a substantive addition against the true owner, a protective addition in the hands of the assessee, who is not the true owner, cannot be sustained.

The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the assessee's submission. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided to be convincing and constituting a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal, finding mitigating circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 144 of the Act and the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice because the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to contest their stand forthwith. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, due to their non-compliance attitude. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries during the assessment proceedings and the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to discharge the onus under Section 68. The PCIT cannot revise an order merely due to a difference of opinion on the extent of inquiry.