Loading ITAT cases…
524 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2026.
Showing 40 of 524 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal noted that the investigation material, bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party constituted a complete chain of circumstances demonstrating that the donation was an accommodation entry. The party's failure to provide audited financial statements and confirm its return filing, coupled with its alleged involvement in facilitating bogus claims, raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the donation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, stating that taxing authorities are not required to ignore surrounding circumstances and can look beyond apparent transactions. The Tribunal also followed the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in identical matters. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order affirming the disallowance made by the AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,73,983/- as additional business income was acceptable. The AO considered the total turnover as Rs. 1,00,39,426/- and computed net profit at 12.5%, which was accepted by both parties as turnover. The assessee's plea to offer only 8% on the difference was rejected as he had already declared 12.5% income under Section 44AD on a portion of the turnover. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not declare closing cash in hand for the previous year and provided no documentary evidence for the opening cash balance. Regarding the Rs. 14,05,000/- cash deposit, the Tribunal found that these deposits were out of the assessee's income and were utilized for payments like EMIs and electricity bills. Therefore, telescoping benefit should be given. The issue was remitted to the AO to determine the availability of funds after considering the cash flow statement, with the direction that the assessee would not get any benefit of the opening cash balance. If the AO finds any shortfall, the addition would be restricted to that extent. The assessee was directed to provide a correct cash flow statement.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to appear before the AO, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 without conducting an independent inquiry to establish the assessee's identity in relation to the seized document. The document JMD-06 was seized from a third party's premises and named Dr. Om Prakash Jha and Sudha Thakur. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the document did not belong to the assessee and that the AO had not brought any material on record to prove otherwise, concluding it was a case of mistaken identity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and held that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee based on the evidence presented. The addition of ₹1,86,43,431/- was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly held that the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee once the identity of the party, JS Traders, with its proprietor Shri Shafiqur Rehman (the assessee's brother), was established. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the evidence, including the GST registration and the brother's Income Tax Return, which linked the account and business to Shafiqur Rahman. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the bank account did not belong to the assessee but to JS Traders, the proprietorship of his brother. Therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that once profit is estimated, it inherently takes into account possible leakages, deficiencies, and unverifiable expenses recorded in the books of account. Therefore, making an additional disallowance for the same set of transactions would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and saw no reason to interfere. The addition of ₹2,49,40,034/- made under Section 69C was deleted by the CIT(A) on the grounds of double taxation, which the Tribunal found to be correct. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of whether Section 69C and Section 145(3) operate independently, as the primary reasoning for upholding the CIT(A)'s order was the principle of avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the AO had tangible information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding huge deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was sufficient to support reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that there was no tangible material. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in share trading, all transactions were made through banking channels and the assessee had produced entire transaction details with the broker and bank statements. The AO had not brought out any discrepancy in these share transactions or their source. Therefore, the addition of ₹2,83,44,250/- under Section 69A as unexplained money could not be sustained and was deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address Ground 3 (escapement of income) or Ground 4 (natural justice) as separate issues but implicitly found no escapement by deleting the addition. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to immunity under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the tax and interest were paid and no appeal was filed against the assessment order, the assessee had not filed a specific application to the Assessing Officer for immunity from penalty as required by Section 270AA. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA were not fulfilled. Regarding the penalty under Section 270A, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately considered the facts and circumstances presented by the assessee, including the reasons for not filing the return under Section 139(1) and the immediate filing of the return in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation as a bonafide case where reasonable cause prevented timely filing. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not a fit case for imposing penalty under Section 270A(2) and directed the deletion of the penalty. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar Vs. Pr.CIT and a coordinate bench decision in Mantosh Kumar Vs. ACIT, which held that a clear seven days' notice must be provided to the assessee for compliance under Section 148A(b). In this case, the notice dated 30/03/2024 required the assessee to respond by 05/04/2024, providing only five clear days, which violates the mandate of the Act. Therefore, the notice under Section 148A(b) was quashed, making all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, unsustainable and nullities. The appeal was allowed on this ground, and the issue of profit estimation was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had examined the issue in detail and was satisfied before deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not admitted any additional evidence beyond the transactions made through the bank. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The ratio decidendi is that if the appellate authority is satisfied with the explanation and documentation provided by the assessee, and no additional evidence beyond banking transactions was admitted, the appellate order should be upheld, even if the Assessing Officer had made additions due to lack of submission from the assessee. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any evidence or material to conclude that the assessee had received the alleged bogus loan of ₹4,00,031 from Shri Mukesh Banka. In the absence of any such material on record brought forth by the AO, no addition could be made under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition and upheld that decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised serious jurisdictional aspects in the grounds of appeal but was absent during the hearing. The Tribunal heard the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) and considered the grounds of appeal and the record. The Sr. DR reiterated that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the assessee's objections and provided ample opportunity. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions and objections, and adhering to the principles of natural justice, directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. The assessee had also filed a rectification application under Section 154, arguing that the jurisdictional ground was not disposed of, which was rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after considering the Sr. DR's submissions and the record, held that it was appropriate to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider all documents, evidence, and submissions to be made by the assessee for a true assessment of income. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessment order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the AO had tangible information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding huge deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was sufficient to support reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that there was no tangible material. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in share trading, all transactions were made through banking channels and the assessee had produced entire transaction details with the broker and bank statements. The AO had not brought out any discrepancy in these share transactions or their source. Therefore, the addition of ₹2,83,44,250/- under Section 69A as unexplained money could not be sustained and was deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address Ground 3 (escapement of income) or Ground 4 (natural justice) as separate issues but implicitly found no escapement by deleting the addition. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT, Ranchi, had jurisdiction to pass the order under section 263. The Tribunal reasoned that despite the section 127 order transferring jurisdiction to Kolkata, the PAN was never migrated, and the case records and statutory proceedings continued to remain with the Ranchi authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction should be viewed in practical terms of control over assessment records, citing CIT Vs. Sahara Indian Financial Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee's jurisdictional objection was technical and lacked substance, as the de facto and de jure jurisdiction continued with Ranchi. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the AO's order dated 15.05.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it disregarded the directions given by the PCIT, Ranchi, under section 264 to examine the genuineness of share capital/premium. The Tribunal concluded that the revision order was not only within jurisdiction but also mandated by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the assessee had failed to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the case was fixed for hearing on four occasions, and on each occasion, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared. Based on this consistent non-appearance, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not wish to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed, and the operative direction was to confirm the order of the CIT(A), implying that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) stand. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was based on the assessee's failure to prosecute.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,11,21,634/- representing interest paid to the creditor companies was unsustainable under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that interest paid is an expenditure and not a 'sum credited' representing an unexplained receipt, and therefore, cannot be brought within the purview of Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed this interest as a business expenditure, creating an inconsistency. Regarding the principal amount of unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of the creditors, including their identity, addresses, PANs, and confirmations. The Tribunal also noted that the creditor companies were RBI-registered NBFCs, regularly assessed to tax, and had substantial returned income. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., which state that once the assessee establishes the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the creditors, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had not brought on record any independent material to disprove the genuineness of the loans beyond the AO's belief that the companies were shell entities. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to delete the addition related to interest.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,79,786 on account of 193.51 grams of gold jewellery was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was part of a joint family, and jewellery was kept together. The AO failed to identify and correlate each item of jewellery with individual family members. The Tribunal considered the total jewellery found and the exemption limits as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (500 grams per lady and 200 grams per male). The assessee was able to provide sources for the investment in jewellery through purchase invoices. Therefore, the difference of 193.51 grams was sufficiently explained in the context of a joint family and multiple ladies in the family. The Tribunal also held that the addition of ₹16,74,000 for 300 grams of gold bullion was unsustainable. The gold bullion was declared under VDIS-1997 by the assessee's mother-in-law and father-in-law, which was accepted by the department. The AO failed to correlate the gold bullion with the assessee individually, despite it being jointly held and already declared. The Tribunal concluded that in joint families, jewellery and bullions are commonly kept together, and the overall benefit of exemptions under CBDT Circular No. 1916 cannot be denied without individual segregation and correlation. Accordingly, both additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them purely legal and capable of being raised at any stage, citing the decision in NTPC Vs CIT. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on March 22, 2022, requiring a response by March 29, 2022, which provided only seven days, falling short of the mandatory minimum seven clear days stipulated by law. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Satish Kumar Vs PCIT and a coordinate bench's decision in Agarwal Metcom Private Limited vs ACIT/DCIT, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 and the subsequent revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were also deemed void. The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148A(b) and all subsequent proceedings. The appeal was allowed on this ground, and other issues were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay and noting the assessee's bona fide intent to pursue the appeal, evidenced by the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but did not appear. However, the Tribunal observed contradictions in the assessee's business nature and contract receipts. It also found that the Assessing Officer had not made independent inquiries to ascertain the source of the contract receipt of ₹11,85,86,475/- and that the 8% profit rate adopted by the AO lacked a rational basis. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Bench's directions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully explained the source of deposits totaling ₹1,35,48,160/- by providing sufficient explanations, which the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not rebut with any discrepancies. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the assessee had not denied receiving the amount, all transactions were through banking channels, and none were doubted by the AO. The Tribunal also corrected the AO's assertion that no return was filed, stating that an original return was filed on 30.07.2014. The Tribunal found that simply because interest was not charged on the transactions, it could not be concluded that the source of the deposits was unexplained. The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on various case laws, including those stating that if the source of income is adequately explained, no addition can be made under Section 69A. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce all the required documents before the CIT(Exemption) so that the application for registration can be decided on merits. The reasoning for this decision was based on the submission by the appellant's counsel that one more opportunity should be provided due to the illness of the person responsible for submitting the details. The learned CIT-Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the operative direction being to re-examine the application after the assessee provides the necessary details. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal chose to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal considered the submissions, particularly the concession made by the learned Sr.DR. The Tribunal agreed with the submission that the period of demonetization, which occurred in FY 2016-17, is relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 and not AY 2016-17. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the matter needed to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to take necessary steps as per law to correct the remedy. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay caused by the assessee's lack of familiarity with electronic and faceless proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the Assessing Officer to rectify the assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01/03/2023, allowing compliance by 08/03/2023, provided only five clear days for response, which is less than the mandatory seven clear days required by Section 148A(b). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar vs. PCIT (WP(T) No. 2649 of 2023) and a Coordinate Bench decision in Mantosh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITA No. 80/Ran/2024), which followed the High Court's ruling. The Tribunal found that the notice was void ab initio due to the violation of the clear seven-day requirement. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were quashed as a nullity. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 72,88,839/- as unexplained money was not decided on merits as the entire proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted confirmations and bank statements from all persons from whom unsecured loans were taken during the period under consideration. Copies of ITRs for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, along with balance sheets and Profit and Loss accounts of the creditors, were also provided. The Tribunal found that since all creditors were assessed to income tax, their identity could not be doubted. Furthermore, all transactions were conducted through banking channels, and details of each transaction, supported by bank statements, were furnished. The Tribunal concluded that the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions were established by the assessee. Therefore, there was no justification to confirm the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The addition of ₹7,35,000 was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) categorically noted that the assessee did not furnish the income proof of her husband regarding salary income from Tata Steel, nor did she submit the bank statement regarding the loan availed by her husband. The CIT(A) also noted that the circle rate list furnished did not prove the income source or the difference between the purchase price and stamp duty value. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order clearly indicated that the assessee had submitted copies of the sale agreement and sale deed, 26AS, and bank statements in response to notices. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence was contrary to the AO's findings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence such as bank statements and proof of income from her husband's salary and loan. The Tribunal noted that the AO had invoked Section 133(6) to call for information from the Sub-Registrar. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was contrary to the AO's observation that the assessee had furnished the necessary documents. The Tribunal did not make any specific finding on the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) or the other grounds raised by the assessee, as the matter was being remanded.
The Tribunal held that while Section 44AD is a presumptive taxation scheme where books of account are not required, the assessee must still provide evidence to establish the genuineness of transactions. The assessee had failed to produce any evidence before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions amounting to ₹11,44,624. The Tribunal found that the assessee was used for routing accommodation entries. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the detailed examination and confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A) and upheld the order. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation and relying on judicial pronouncements for a liberal approach to condonation. Regarding the additions under Section 40(a)(ia) for 'accounting charges' and 'salary and allowance', the Tribunal found it just and proper to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to appear before the AO and substantiate that the payments made as 'accounting charges' or in respect of 'salary' did not exceed the threshold limits where TDS was required to be deducted under Section 192 or Section 194J of the Act. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the assessee's explanation. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions by simply comparing the difference in bank deposits with the turnover, without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the demonetization period was an abnormal period, and people indeed used retail fuel outlets to exchange demonetized currencies. The assessee had provided explanations for the increase in turnover and claimed that all transactions were made through banking channels. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the additions made by the AO without rejecting the books of account, reconciling the P&L account, or pointing out specific discrepancies. Therefore, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that it was the duty of the Revenue to show that there was some evidence in its possession indicating that the assessee had actually entered into a transaction with M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Udyog. The Revenue had not confronted the assessee with such information. The Tribunal held that merely stating that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus entries was insufficient to conclude that the assessee was involved in transactions with a bogus entity. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld it. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee, whereas by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also understand their mistakes. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the NFAC for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the NFAC and provide all relevant documents and evidences. The Tribunal did not decide on the specific grounds related to residential status, salary income, TDS credit, or exempt foreign salary income, as these were to be adjudicated by the NFAC upon restoration. The operative direction was to restore the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Regarding the claim for exemption under Section 54, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee received ownership of five separate residential flats, which contravened the amended Section 54(1) of the Act, disentitling the assessee from claiming exemption. The Tribunal agreed that non-fulfilment of statutory eligibility conditions ipso facto disqualifies the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) was right in confirming the AO's disallowance. On the cost of improvement claim of ₹20,26,744, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof by not furnishing adequate vouchers, bills, and payment details. The Tribunal also found the decision in Ranjan Sen Jain Vs ITO to be based on facts and not legal aspects, thus not following it as a rule of consistency. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and upheld it. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal first addressed the legal grounds, specifically Ground No. 1 concerning "borrowed satisfaction" and initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148/148A. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A), who had already provided categorical findings that the legal grounds raised by the assessee were not sustainable. Regarding the factual aspect, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on a gross profit rate of 25% on purchases from M/s Iskon Steel Traders, which was found to be a non-genuine entity. This was done by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in Vijay Proteins Vs ACIT, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the context of Vijay Proteins Ltd., confirmed the principle that when goods are not received from the stated parties but from a different source known to the assessee, and the assessee inflates expenditure through fictitious invoices, disallowing 25% of the purchase price is justified. Since the CIT(A) followed this precedent, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with his order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. Regarding the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the building (issue 3), the assessee argued that the DVO's valuation using CPWD rates was incorrect for Ranchi, and PWD rates should have been applied, referencing the decisions in Gita Kumari Vs ACIT and Poonam Devi Vs ACIT. The Tribunal, following the Coordinate Bench's decision in ITA No. 21/Ran/2022, agreed that PWD rates should have been applied instead of CPWD rates. However, it noted that the CIT(A) had already examined this issue in detail and restricted the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this point and upheld it. Regarding the other additions sustained by the CIT(A) – ₹25,05,000 as suppressed professional receipts (issue 1) and ₹5,00,000 as bogus expenses (issue 2) – the assessee's counsel did not present any fresh evidence to support its claims that the suppressed receipts were accounted for or that the expenses were duly vouched. Consequently, these additions sustained by the CIT(A) were also upheld. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to be heard, but no one appeared. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, in its statement of facts filed along with the appeal memo, did not provide any supporting documents to substantiate its claim that it had not underreported or misreported income by claiming wrong deductions/exemptions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and concluded that there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; all grounds were addressed by the dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit (FTC) amounting to ₹ 12,11,065/-. The reasoning was based on the principle that DTAA provisions override the provisions of Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are more beneficial to the assessee. The Tribunal respectfully followed decisions of its Coordinate Benches, which have held that assessees are entitled to FTC benefits when DTAA provisions are more beneficial. The issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not expressly decided by the Tribunal, as the primary focus was on the FTC claim. The operative direction was to allow the FTC benefit to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to appear before both the revenue authorities, legal issues cannot be raised at this stage. The case is remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to submit all documents and material.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C, which allows for the adoption of agreement value under certain conditions, cannot be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.