Loading ITAT cases…
5,309 tribunal orders from the Surat bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
The Municipal Corporation Act and an Industrial Development Act operate in distinct spheres without conflict between them.
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.
For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.
The Assessing Officer is justified in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on specific, tangible information received, even if an assessment under Section 143(1) or 143(3) was previously done. At the initial stage, "reason to believe" only requires relevant material to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment, not established proof of escapement.
When an assessment is initially processed under section 143(1) without scrutiny, the Assessing Officer has considerable latitude to reopen the assessment under section 147 if new tangible material emerges, such as information from a search revealing accommodation entries or bogus share applications, establishing a live link to escaped income.
The rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not applicable before the tax authorities.
Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.
The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 against legal representatives of a deceased assessee requires a demonstrable 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment, often based on third-party information such as alleged accommodation entries.
In reassessment proceedings, if the Assessing Officer fails to make an addition on the specific ground for which the assessment was reopened, no addition can be made on other issues not forming part of the original reasons recorded.
A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.
A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.
An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.
Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.
No addition can be made under section 68 for cash credits if the loan repayment is established in the subsequent year through banking channels, and the assessee has provided sufficient evidence of the creditor's genuineness and creditworthiness.
Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.
Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on the statement of the assessee's husband and impounded papers (page 84 of Annexure BF-20) to add Rs. 12,25,000/-. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's husband had denied knowledge of the receipt of this cash in specific questions of his statement dated 17.03.2017. Furthermore, the assessee was not provided with the loose papers at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee had provided details of the registered sale document executed on 06.10.2016, which was not verified in consonance with the alleged on-money receipt. Since the documents were not provided as per Ground No. 1.1, the matter requires proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Ground No. 1.1 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. As other grounds were corollary to Ground No. 1.1, they were not adjudicated at that juncture. The ratio decidendi is that additions based on alleged undisclosed cash receipts from property sale, without proper verification of the sale deed and without providing supporting documents to the assessee, are unsustainable and require remand for proper inquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without examining the merits of the case. The delay was attributed to the negligence of the assessee's previous consultant, which should not be held against the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) appeared to have not been verified by either the CIT(A) or the AO. Therefore, to ensure proper verification of the claim, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to properly verify the claim made by the assessee under Section 80P and adjudicate the issue accordingly. The assessee was also to be given an opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The specific amount of Rs. 98,09,175/- mentioned in ground 2 was not specifically addressed in terms of its allowability, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had taken into account the details furnished by the assessee, which were also available to the AO. The CIT(A) made a categorical finding that the assessee had furnished confirmations and bank books of the relevant parties, establishing the identity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transactions for business purposes. The CIT(A) also considered the creditworthiness of the parties where established. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) and upheld the deletion of the additions made by the AO. The ratio decidendi is that if the assessee provides sufficient evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, and these were considered by the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal will not interfere with such findings.
The Tribunal noted that the retraction of Shri Deepak Jain before the Executive Magistrate was not considered by the AO or the CIT(A). The assessee had also provided bank statements, confirmations, and ITR acknowledgments of M/s. Abhinandan Diamond Pvt. Ltd., which the Revenue had not commented upon. Considering that a similar appeal for AY 2012-13 was restored to the CIT(A) by the Tribunal, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to properly verify the details filed by the assessee and adjudicate the issues in accordance with the Income Tax Act, ensuring that the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing as per the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) pending this remand.
For ITA 868/SRT/2026, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the Section 12A application was primarily due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the Ld. CIT(E) had afforded only one opportunity. Considering the significant consequences of Section 12A registration and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to provide reasonable opportunities and the assessee to cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA 230/SRT/2026, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 633 days, citing a justice-oriented approach as emphasized by the Supreme Court. On merits, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a technical mistake was made in selecting the incorrect clause of the proviso to Section 80G(5). Following the decisions of the ITAT Pune Bench in National Association for the Blind (supra) and other similar cases, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to rectify the applicable clause and requiring the Ld. CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA 231/SRT/2026, the assessee's counsel prayed not to press the appeal. The Ld. DR had no objection. Accordingly, this appeal was dismissed as not-pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) relied on the statement of the assessee's husband and impounded papers (page No.84 of Annexure BF-20) to add Rs. 12,25,000/- as cash received on the sale of the flat. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's husband had denied knowledge of receiving this cash in his statement (Answers to Question No.19 & 20 dated 17.03.2017). Furthermore, the assessee was not provided with the loose papers during the assessment proceedings, and the registered sale document executed on 06.10.2016 was not verified in consonance with the alleged on-money receipt. Given these discrepancies and the failure to provide documents as per Ground No.1.1, the Tribunal found that the matter requires proper verification and adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. Ground No.1.1 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The other grounds were not adjudicated as they were corollary to Ground No.1.1.
For ITA 868/SRT/2026, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the Section 12A application was primarily due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the Ld. CIT(E) had afforded only one opportunity. Considering the significant consequences of Section 12A registration and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to provide reasonable opportunities and the assessee to cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA 230/SRT/2026, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 633 days, citing a justice-oriented approach as emphasized by the Supreme Court. On merits, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a technical mistake was made in selecting the incorrect clause of the proviso to Section 80G(5). Following the decisions of the ITAT Pune Bench in National Association for the Blind (supra) and other similar cases, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to rectify the applicable clause and requiring the Ld. CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA 231/SRT/2026, the assessee's counsel prayed not to press the appeal. The Ld. DR had no objection. Accordingly, this appeal was dismissed as not-pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee filed Form 10-ID on September 28, 2022, for AY 2022-23. For AY 2023-24, the assessee filed its return of income on September 28, 2023, but Form 10-ID was not filed; instead, Form 3CA-3CD was filed. The Tribunal referred to Section 115BAB, which requires compliance with conditions in sub-section 2. It noted that Section 115BAA, sub-section 5 proviso, states that if an option under Section 115BAB is rendered invalid due to violations, the assessee may exercise the option under Section 115BAA, and once exercised, it cannot be withdrawn. Therefore, Sections 115BAA and 115BAB should be considered together. The Tribunal found that the decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal did not consider the Apex Court's decision in Wipro Ltd. Thus, the contention of the revenue was found to be justifiable. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 399 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Tribunal relied on the assessee's explanation regarding their lack of technical expertise and reliance on tax consultants, coupled with the fact that they only became aware of the proceedings upon physical notice. The Tribunal invoked Section 253(5) of the Act and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over technical considerations. The Tribunal also restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, citing the principle of natural justice and noting that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income-Tax Department and ensuring strict compliance in future proceedings, with the AO being at liberty to proceed according to law if the assessee fails to participate without unnecessary adjournments. The assessee was directed to make a proper and effective representation before the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the additional ground of appeal. It held that a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory when a revised return is filed and accepted by the Assessing Officer, as the notice is return-specific, not assessment year-specific. The Tribunal relied on the proviso to Section 143(2), which states that no notice shall be served after six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. In this case, the revised return was filed on November 29, 2018, and the assessment order was passed on December 5, 2018, leaving time for issuing a fresh notice. The Tribunal cited decisions in L&T Mutual Fund Asset Management Ltd. vs. CIT and Yes & Yes Hitech Premier Homes vs. ITO, holding that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after a valid revised return is an incurable defect and fatal to the assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio. As the assessment itself was invalid, the original grounds of appeal became academic and did not require adjudication.
For ITA 868/SRT/2026, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the Section 12A application was primarily due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the Ld. CIT(E) had afforded only one opportunity. Considering the significant consequences of Section 12A registration and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to provide reasonable opportunities and the assessee to cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA 230/SRT/2026, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 633 days, citing a justice-oriented approach as emphasized by the Supreme Court. On merits, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a technical mistake was made in selecting the incorrect clause of the proviso to Section 80G(5). Following the decisions of the ITAT Pune Bench in National Association for the Blind (supra) and other similar cases, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to rectify the applicable clause and requiring the Ld. CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA 231/SRT/2026, the assessee's counsel prayed not to press the appeal. The Ld. DR had no objection. Accordingly, this appeal was dismissed as not-pressed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the established principle that penalty is not exigible when additions to income are made or sustained on an ad hoc or estimated basis. The Tribunal noted that the additions in this case had undergone a series of estimations at all appellate levels, starting from the AO's initial 100% addition, reduced to 5% by the CIT(A), and finally upheld at 6% by the ITAT in earlier proceedings. The Tribunal found that this issue, arising from identical facts of estimated additions on account of alleged bogus purchases, had already been settled in the assessee's own case for earlier years by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Surat. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to other decisions of co-ordinate benches of ITAT, Surat, and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, which supported the deletion of penalty on estimated additions. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned penalties. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing that technical considerations should not prevail over substantial justice. For the quantum appeal (ITA 400/SRT/2026), the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Income-tax Department and ensuring vigilant participation in future hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the cost payment. For the penalty appeal (ITA 462/SRT/2026), the Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 30,000 imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee's representative could not rebut the revenue's submissions or provide reasons to interfere with the lower authorities' orders. Consequently, the penalty appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue related to the correct computation of capital gains under section 48 or the benefit under section 50C(2), as these were to be adjudicated by the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to examine the relevant material concerning the service of the order and notice of demand to determine the issue of limitation in accordance with law. If the appeal is found to be within limitation, it shall be admitted. If found to be delayed, the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the condonation of delay after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Upon admission, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the grounds relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 65,50,000/- under Section 68 on merits, after giving both sides a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) is to pass a reasoned order uninfluenced by the findings in the impugned order. The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) by applying the principle of "sufficient cause" and "substantial justice" as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not controvert the assessee's explanation regarding partner disputes and the Ld. DR did not object to the matter being restored. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudication afresh. The Ld. AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal, and any further evidence the assessee might submit. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Ld. AO was granted liberty to proceed as per law if the assessee failed to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal also restored the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by restoring the appeals, and it was in line with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte orders. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed according to law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) by applying the principle of "sufficient cause" and "substantial justice" as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not controvert the assessee's explanation regarding partner disputes and the Ld. DR did not object to the matter being restored. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudication afresh. The Ld. AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal, and any further evidence the assessee might submit. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Ld. AO was granted liberty to proceed as per law if the assessee failed to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal partly allowed Ground No. 1 concerning the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans. While acknowledging that the assessee had provided some documentation, the Tribunal noted that the creditors had deposited cash in their bank accounts immediately before advancing the loans. Considering the surrounding circumstances and the alternative plea of the Revenue, the Tribunal sustained 50% of the addition, i.e., Rs. 20,00,000/-, and deleted the remaining Rs. 20,00,000/-. The reasoning was that the balance was available with the creditors, but the direct nexus and creditworthiness were not fully established. For Ground No. 2, the Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the addition of Rs. 14,04,322/- on account of cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's case contained a proper day-to-day running balance in the cash book, and the assessee had explained the source of cash generated and established a nexus between withdrawals and deposits. Therefore, the addition was not sustained. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Blessing Construction vs. ITO was considered applicable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the established principle that penalty is not exigible when additions to income are made or sustained on an ad hoc or estimated basis. The Tribunal noted that the additions in this case had undergone a series of estimations at all appellate levels, starting from the AO's initial 100% addition, reduced to 5% by the CIT(A), and finally upheld at 6% by the ITAT in earlier proceedings. The Tribunal found that this issue, arising from identical facts of estimated additions on account of alleged bogus purchases, had already been settled in the assessee's own case for earlier years by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Surat. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to other decisions of co-ordinate benches of ITAT, Surat, and decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, which supported the deletion of penalty on estimated additions. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned penalties. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing that technical considerations should not prevail over substantial justice. For the quantum appeal (ITA 400/SRT/2026), the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Income-tax Department and ensuring vigilant participation in future hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the cost payment. For the penalty appeal (ITA 462/SRT/2026), the Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 30,000 imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee's representative could not rebut the revenue's submissions or provide reasons to interfere with the lower authorities' orders. Consequently, the penalty appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue related to the correct computation of capital gains under section 48 or the benefit under section 50C(2), as these were to be adjudicated by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal also restored the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by restoring the appeals, and it was in line with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte orders. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed according to law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal also restored the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by restoring the appeals, and it was in line with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte orders. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed according to law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to examine the relevant material concerning the service of the assessment order and notice of demand to determine the issue of limitation in accordance with law. If the appeal is found to be within the limitation period, it shall be admitted. If it is found to be delayed, the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the condonation of delay after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Upon admission, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the grounds relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 65,50,000/- under Section 68 on merits, after giving both parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) is to pass a reasoned order, uninfluenced by the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the assessment order was served on 26.06.2024, making the appeal filed on 25.07.2024 within the statutory period, and the Ld. CIT(A)'s dismissal for delay. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's challenge to the reassessment proceedings and the addition, and the revenue's request for remand due to lack of scrutiny.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order and made the impugned addition without considering the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee's counsel drew the Tribunal's attention to the DVO's report dated 27.10.2022. The assessee's counsel prayed for the matter to be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering the DVO report and the assessee's objections. The Revenue's representative agreed to this course of action. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. It was clarified that the AO shall provide the assessee with a full opportunity to present its submissions and consider all objections without being influenced by the previous order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal concerning the addition of Rs. 40,00,000 on account of unsecured loans. While acknowledging the assessee's submission that some lenders were related and accounted for a significant portion of the loan, the Tribunal noted the lack of details regarding repayment and the fact that creditors deposited cash before advancing loans. Considering the revenue's alternative plea and the surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal sustained 50% of the addition, i.e., Rs. 20,00,000, holding that the creditors had deposited cash in their bank accounts before advancing loans. For the addition of Rs. 14,04,322 on account of cash deposits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee's cash book appeared to explain the source of cash and established a nexus between withdrawals and deposits. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in Blessing Construction vs. ITO. The operative direction was to delete the addition of Rs. 14,04,322 and sustain Rs. 20,00,000 out of the Rs. 40,00,000 addition.