ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid, but the addition for investment in insurance policies was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient explanation and evidence. However, a deduction under Section 80C was allowed after verification.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid, but the addition for investment in insurance policies was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient explanation and evidence. However, a deduction under Section 80C was allowed after verification.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of assessment reopening was not admissible as it had been previously dismissed and not challenged. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found them untenable due to the denial of cross-examination and lack of evidence, allowing the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of assessment reopening was not admissible as it had been previously dismissed and not challenged. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found them untenable due to the denial of cross-examination and lack of evidence, allowing the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, inherited over 40 years prior and sold after plotting, should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The addition made by the AO based on third-party statements without allowing cross-examination was not tenable.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of assessment reopening was not admissible as it had been previously dismissed and not challenged. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found them untenable due to the denial of cross-examination and lack of evidence, allowing the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that merely because an expenditure claim was not accepted by the revenue, it does not automatically attract penalty. The addition was based on estimation, and the assessee had provided supporting documents and filed returns, rebutting the presumption of concealment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order even when dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of assessment reopening was not admissible as it had been previously dismissed and not challenged. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found them untenable due to the denial of cross-examination and lack of evidence, allowing the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind to the issues. The Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's view was unsustainable in law or that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were met.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had adopted a plausible view, and the Pr. CIT's action was based on an audit objection without independent application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening was validly issued as the assessee had not informed the tax authorities of any change in address. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that the income was from agricultural activities, considering the family's land holdings and the assessee's role in managing financial affairs.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the report of the Registered Valuer and substituting his own valuation based on Sub-Registrar data. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and that the Sub-Registrar's guidance value is not a valid basis for determining market value, citing judicial pronouncements including CIT v. Smt. Rajkumari Vimla Devi and Smt. Krishna Bajaj v. ACIT. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the rate of Rs. 46 per sq. meter as estimated by the Government Registered Valuer for computing the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and to work out the LTCG accordingly. Regarding the Rs. 51 lakhs paid for clearing title, the Tribunal found that although initially paid by the purchaser, the assessee had reimbursed this amount, which was reflected in her bank account. Therefore, this amount was allowable as a deduction from the sale consideration. However, it was not allowable as a cost of improvement as it was paid after the execution of the sale deed. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, as the Assessing Officer's order was not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Pr. CIT did not suggest specific inquiries the AO should have made.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The AO's reasons were based on incorrect premises regarding turnover calculation and the applicability of TDS provisions to individuals. Furthermore, the AO had no new tangible material and merely re-examined existing records.

The Tribunal held that the market rate adopted by the assessee, which included various charges, was supported by ITAT decisions. The Tribunal also found that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by a previous year's decision of the CIT(A) and ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening was validly issued as the assessee had not informed the tax authorities of any change in address. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that the income was from agricultural activities, considering the family's land holdings and the assessee's role in managing financial affairs.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was on a presumptive basis without corroborating evidence. The payments made by the assessee were admitted and taxed, and there was no material to suggest further payments beyond what was recorded.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind, and his view was plausible. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained income due to simultaneous withdrawals. The addition was restricted to the peak balance of the bank account. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled due to a mismatch in the grounds for initiation and imposition.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained income due to simultaneous withdrawals. The addition was restricted to the peak balance of the bank account. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled due to a mismatch in the grounds for initiation and imposition.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for the opening balance and declared income against the Axis Bank addition. For the Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank addition, the Tribunal restricted the addition to the highest peak balance in that account.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot enhance the disallowance beyond what was determined in the original assessment proceedings. However, considering the nature of expenses, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 4,00,000.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 69 without establishing that the assessee made investments not recorded in books of account. It also noted that the CIT(A) changed the section without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, citing the complex circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief that the matter was being handled by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years where the additions were deleted, the turnover fell below the audit threshold, making the penalty not leviable. For the remaining year, the assessee's bonafide belief that the income was capital gains constituted a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in not invoking Section 145(3) as the assessee had produced complete books of account and supporting evidence. The fall in GP was also adequately explained by the increased turnover.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years where the additions were deleted, the turnover fell below the audit threshold, making the penalty not leviable. For the remaining year, the assessee's bonafide belief that the income was capital gains constituted a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years where the additions were deleted, the turnover fell below the audit threshold, making the penalty not leviable. For the remaining year, the assessee's bonafide belief that the income was capital gains constituted a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years where the additions were deleted, the turnover fell below the audit threshold, making the penalty not leviable. For the remaining year, the assessee's bonafide belief that the income was capital gains constituted a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order while dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The principle of audi alteram partem requires an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order when disposing of the appeal ex-parte, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.