Loading ITAT cases…
155 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly upheld the AO's action. Regarding the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, the Tribunal found a clear one-to-one linkage between the registered sale deed, the seized 'Miracle' ledger showing total consideration and cash receipts, and the statements of the group accountant and promoter accepting unaccounted cash dealings. This formed a complete chain of evidence proving the assessee paid 'on-money'. The assessee's denial without rebuttal, books, or bank statements to contradict the seized material failed to discharge the burden. The Tribunal noted that vague denials are insufficient when seized documents and statements corroborate 'on-money' transactions, and additions under Sections 69/69B/69C are justified if the assessee cannot explain differential consideration or cash sources. The Ld. CIT(A)'s observation that the AO confronted all material to the assessee and considered submissions, thus not violating principles of natural justice, was endorsed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the addition of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE. The issue of cross-examination was addressed by the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that all material was confronted, and the assessee had opportunities to make submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding the reasons in the assessee's affidavit to be convincing and constituting a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 409 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), opining that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their tax consultant, citing judicial precedents that advocate for a liberal and pragmatic approach in condoning delays, especially when there is no malafide or negligence. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under section 144 and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. Considering this, and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is a widow, an agriculturist, and responsible for her children, with agriculture being her sole income source. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not considered the cash withdrawals of Rs. 21,22,500/- made during the year, which indicated that a majority of the cash deposits could have originated from earlier withdrawals, agricultural income, and past savings. However, the Tribunal also found the documents submitted by the assessee to be self-serving and not fully reliable. Consequently, the entire addition could not be deleted. Recognizing that the entire cash deposit cannot be treated as income and that a profit element should be taxed, the Tribunal directed an ad hoc estimated addition of 9% of the disputed amount, amounting to Rs. 1,97,551/- (9% of Rs. 21,95,012/-). This decision was made considering the peculiar facts of the case and the agreement of both parties for an estimated addition. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this adjudication should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's written submissions, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Tribunal noted that it is settled law that an affected party must be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) 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. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed the cash as advances on capital account, but it was treated as revenue. The assessee's explanation was that the money was collected from clients to be paid to insurance companies or port authorities, and that these amounts were deposited in the bank and then paid out by cheque or bank transfer. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to explain the cash received from customers. Considering the smallness of the amount and the agreement from both sides for an estimated addition, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an ad-hoc estimated addition of 10% of Rs. 4,60,000/-, which amounts to Rs. 46,000/-, to be taxed at normal rates. This decision was made to protect revenue interests and meet the ends of justice, with a clear note that it should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was not considered. The CIT(A) was required to examine this application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. If admitted, the AO should have been given an opportunity to examine and rebut the evidence. The failure to do so, and the absence of a remand report from the AO, constituted a violation of Rule 46A(3) and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the application for additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A, obtain comments/remand report from the AO after granting him an opportunity to examine and rebut, confront the assessee with the remand report if necessary, and then adjudicate the grounds afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove the cash transactions with the Qutone Group with documentary evidence. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services and the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted receipts can be brought to tax, not the entire receipts. The Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition to the tune of Rs. 2,37,500/- (10% of Rs. 23,75,000/-) by following the normal rate of income tax. This decision was rendered on the peculiar facts of the case and the smallness of the amount involved, and should not be construed as laying down propositions of law of general application. The issue of cross-examination was not explicitly decided but the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case on merits based on the available evidence and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced certain material documents for the first time before the appellate authority, including an extract of the list of political parties issued by the Election Commission of India dated 15.05.2023, Notification No. 56/2022, and the list of political parties that participated in the General Election, 2019. These documents were admittedly not furnished before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the evidentiary value and factual implications of these documents required verification. In the interest of substantial justice and to provide an effective opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the additional evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of verification under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Consequently, the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the aforesaid documents, afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271B of the Act is leviable for failure to get accounts audited or failure to furnish the audit report. In this case, the books of accounts were duly audited, and the audit report was electronically filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income (31.10.2018). The system status confirmed successful e-filing on that date. The delay in approving the audit report was attributed to the assessee's ill health, which constituted a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act. The Tribunal found the default to be merely technical and venial. Citing the judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd. (83 ITR 26), the Tribunal noted that penalties are not mandatory and should not be levied for technical breaches without willful defiance of the law. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 271B was deleted. The ground of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's written submissions, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Tribunal noted that it is settled law that an affected party must be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) 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. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's written submissions, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Tribunal noted that it is settled law that an affected party must be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) 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. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, finding the reasons provided in the affidavit to be convincing and constituting a reasonable and sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for adjudication afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly upheld the AO's action. Regarding the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, the Tribunal found a clear one-to-one linkage between the registered sale deed, the seized 'Miracle' ledger showing total consideration and cash receipts, and the statements of the group accountant and promoter accepting unaccounted cash dealings. This formed a complete chain of evidence proving the assessee paid 'on-money'. The assessee's denial without rebuttal, books, or bank statements to contradict the seized material failed to discharge the burden. The Tribunal noted that vague denials are insufficient when seized documents and statements corroborate 'on-money' transactions, and additions under Sections 69/69B/69C are justified if the assessee cannot explain differential consideration or cash sources. The Ld. CIT(A)'s observation that the AO confronted all material to the assessee and considered submissions, thus not violating principles of natural justice, was endorsed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the addition of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE. The issue of cross-examination was addressed by the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that all material was confronted, and the assessee had opportunities to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's written submissions, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Tribunal noted that it is settled law that an affected party must be granted a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) 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. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead their case successfully. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on account of a 60-day delay, but the Tribunal condoned this delay, finding sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sought an adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A) to file details and documents, which was not allowed. 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 AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the addition was made on account of purchases from M/s Tirth Gold, based on data seized during a search. While the assessee claimed the purchases were not bogus and submitted bank statements and books of account, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain the transactions or submit all necessary documents to the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted the assessee's alternative plea for an estimated addition. Citing Supreme Court observations in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services and Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. President Industries, the Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the undisclosed receipts should be taxed, not the entire gross amount. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition of 8% of Rs. 13,07,275/-, amounting to Rs. 1,04,582/-, representing the profit element. This decision was based on the peculiar facts and smallness of the amounts involved and was not to be construed as laying down general propositions of law.
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies between the notice under section 148, the approval under section 151, and the order-sheet entries of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found it difficult to conclusively determine, based on the available material, whether the approval under section 151 was duly obtained from the competent authority, whether it was granted with reference to the reasons recorded, and whether it validly supported the issuance of the notice under section 148. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal emphasized that prior sanction under section 151 is a substantive jurisdictional safeguard. Due to these material discrepancies and inconsistencies, the Tribunal restored the limited issue of the validity of the reassessment proceedings to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to examine the complete original assessment/reassessment record, including reasons recorded, proposal for sanction, approval under section 151, notice under section 148, and relevant order-sheet entries, to determine compliance with statutory conditions and safeguards. The Ld. CIT(A) was also directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were either repaid or supported by sufficient evidence, and the discount expenses were a normal business expenditure. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard and allowed to produce all relevant supporting documents to substantiate the purchases. The Assessing Officer is to examine the issue afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the evidence furnished by the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the genuineness of the purchases but remanded it for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the application filed by the assessee's AR seeking withdrawal and the lack of objection from the revenue's DR. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both learned representatives. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided, and no specific ratio decidendi for future citation was established beyond the procedural aspect of allowing withdrawal requests when unopposed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is part of compensation and thus exempt from tax.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had actually received Rs. 25,00,000 in AY 2018-19 and offered capital gains relatable to this receipt. While the developer deducted TDS on a higher amount (Rs. 2,86,25,000), the assessee claimed TDS credit only for Rs. 25,000 in the current year and carried forward the balance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished particulars of further receipts in subsequent AYs (2019-20 to 2022-23) and correspondingly offered relatable capital gains in those years, which were not disturbed by the Department. The Tribunal also found merit in the argument that other co-owners followed the same method of offering capital gains in respective years of receipt, and this treatment was accepted by tax authorities in their Section 147 assessments. Therefore, the assessee's case was at parity with the co-owners. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,45,32,692 made by the AO was not sustainable and was deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard and allowed to produce all relevant supporting documents to substantiate the purchases. The Assessing Officer is to examine the issue afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the evidence furnished by the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the genuineness of the purchases but remanded it for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2012 amended sections 201 and 40(a)(ia) to allow the payer if the recipient has included the income and paid taxes. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payee included the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that the issue is no longer res integra. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, which recorded the Revenue's concession that all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 are liable to be dropped, and the Gujarat High Court's decisions in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel and Sorathia Mahesh Veljibhai HUF, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling and held that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation, the Tribunal found that the present case involved a notice u/s 148 dated 25.06.2021 and a consequential notice dated 27.07.2022. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the impugned reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The reassessment order was quashed as bad in law. Consequently, Ground No. 1, relating to the condonation of delay, was allowed. As the reassessment order was quashed, the other grounds concerning the merits of the addition were not adjudicated and were kept open. The operative direction was to quash the reassessment order.
The Tribunal decided that grounds 1 to 3 were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Regarding grounds 4 and 5, concerning the re-characterisation of capital gain as short-term and the disallowance of deduction under section 54, the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the holding period should be from the date of allotment (08.01.2011) to the date of sale (10.10.2016), making it long-term capital gain. The AO, however, considered the holding period from the date of conveyance deed registration (30.09.2016) to the date of sale (10.10.2016), resulting in short-term capital gain. The assessee relied on CBDT Circulars No. 471 and 672, and the ITAT Mumbai decision in Anita D. Kanjani vs. ACIT, arguing that allotment of property under such schemes grants a right/interest from the allotment date. The Tribunal found that the assessee had acquired a right/interest in the property from 08.01.2011, the date of allotment, and this right continued until the sale. Therefore, the holding period should be considered from the allotment date. The Tribunal held that the capital gain was long-term. The addition of Rs. 68,12,137 as short-term capital gain and the disallowance of deduction under section 54 were deleted. The issue regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not explicitly decided in the provided text, but the relief granted on capital gains implies a modification of the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer possessed material of sufficient evidentiary value to conclude that the appellant had paid an unrecorded cash component of Rs. 12,64,000/- in connection with the purchase of Office No. 303 in 'The Imperia' project. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed paid 'on-money' for the property. However, it was held that the entire 'on-money' should not be taxed, but only the profit element. Citing Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services and CIT v. President Industries, the Tribunal emphasized that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition on account of the profit element at 10% of Rs. 12,64,000/-, amounting to Rs. 1,26,400/-, and to sustain this addition at the normal rate of income tax, not under Section 115BBE. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 387 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially when there is no mala fide intention. The medical emergency in the assessee's family, involving cancer, major surgery, and ongoing treatment, was considered a sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) and the Madras High Court's decision in Mrs. Kamala Lakshmi Narayan v. ITO, emphasizing that the cause for delay, not just its length, is crucial. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained a sufficient cause for the delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5,82,956/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of the difference in jantri rates. The Tribunal noted that in the co-owner's case, similar Long Term Capital Gain was accepted by the revenue, and by following the principle of equality of laws and decisions of the Madras High Court in ICT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi and a co-ordinate bench in Chetanbhai Prahladbhai Gami vs. ITO, the addition was deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 33,32,677/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified and should be deleted. The Tribunal reasoned that the opening cash balance of Rs. 33,32,677/- as of 01.04.2014, which is the closing balance of the previous financial year, cannot be treated as income of the current assessment year (AY 2015-16). The Tribunal emphasized that income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the right person and for the right income in the right assessment year, as per Section 4 and Section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. An amount representing an opening balance, which originated in an earlier previous year and is merely carried forward, cannot ordinarily be assessed as income of the current assessment year. The AO failed to prove that the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee was incorrect or to bring any evidence to disbelieve it, despite the assessee providing supporting documents like land records and crop details. Therefore, the addition was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed complete documents before the AO and some submissions were self-serving. Therefore, while some relief was warranted, complete relief could not be granted. The Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of Rs. 37,000/- at a normal rate of income tax, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not provided with adequate opportunities before the AO and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided with the seized documents pertaining to her and an opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the mistake of the tax consultant and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not provided with adequate opportunities before the AO and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not provided with adequate opportunities before the AO and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not provided with adequate opportunities before the AO and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided with the seized documents pertaining to her and an opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not provided with adequate opportunities before the AO and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh after affording a proper opportunity of being heard.
The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this submission.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on Leave Travel Concession when it was operating under binding interim judicial directions. The demand raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for not deducting tax at source on Leave Travel Concession payments. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in ITA Nos. 453 & 454/Ahd/2026, which in turn followed the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's decision in ITA No.45 of 2025 and a coordinate bench decision in ITA No.514/Agr/2024. The reasoning was that the assessee was operating under binding interim directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court during the relevant period, which restrained it from deducting tax at source. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to deduct tax under Section 192 cannot override binding judicial orders. Therefore, the failure to deduct tax in such circumstances does not constitute a default contemplated under Section 201(1). Consequently, the demand raised under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the penalty proceedings under Section 271(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases had undergone a series of estimations at all levels of appeal. Initially, the AO made a 100% addition, which was reduced to 5% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to its own prior decisions in ITA No. 159/SRT/2026 (Sharad Jain Vs. ITO), ITA No. 125/SRT/2024 (Shri Ramprakash Vijayvergia Vs. ITO), and ITA No. 655/SRT/2025 (Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer). These decisions, dealing with identical facts of estimated additions on account of alleged bogus purchases, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on ad-hoc or estimated additions. The Tribunal found no distinguishing features or contrary judicial pronouncements presented by the revenue. Following the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty. The issue of penalty on the entire amount of alleged unverified purchases was implicitly decided by holding that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed details before the Tribunal. While these additional evidences were admitted, they required verification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication of the issues on merit. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must be given an opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The specific findings on the additions of Rs. 2,82,000/- and Rs. 10,35,125/-, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, were not decided on merits but were subject to fresh verification by the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of tax invoices, payment, and ledger account entries, as well as GST paid. The department had accepted the corresponding sales. While the supplier was declared untraceable, the Tribunal found it appropriate to accept the assessee's alternate plea. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a 6% profit on the purchase amount, which it found to be Rs. 1,88,800/- based on the records, rather than the Rs. 2,66,000/- initially added. The reasoning was that given the evidence of purchase and payment, and the acceptance of sales, a profit estimation was more equitable than a full disallowance, especially when the supplier was untraceable. The ratio decidendi is that where purchases are evidenced by invoices and payments, but the supplier is untraceable, a profit estimation at a reasonable rate (e.g., 6%) is a valid approach, as per High Court precedents, instead of a full disallowance under Section 69C.
The Tribunal held that the additions forming the basis for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are currently the subject matter of quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, the foundation upon which the impugned penalties were levied is not yet final. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings and decide the penalty issue afresh, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions forming the basis for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are currently the subject matter of quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, the foundation upon which the impugned penalties were levied is not yet final. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings and decide the penalty issue afresh, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions forming the basis for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are currently the subject matter of quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, the foundation upon which the impugned penalties were levied is not yet final. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings and decide the penalty issue afresh, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions forming the basis for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are currently the subject matter of quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, the foundation upon which the impugned penalties were levied is not yet final. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings and decide the penalty issue afresh, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions forming the basis for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are currently the subject matter of quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, the foundation upon which the impugned penalties were levied is not yet final. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings and decide the penalty issue afresh, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.