ITAT Surat Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including payment details through account payee cheques, TDS deductions, and PAN details of creditors. The AO had not conducted further inquiries to discredit the submitted evidence.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and gathered evidence regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the assessee's activities. The PCIT's revisionary order was considered erroneous as the Assessing Officer's assessment was not found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the penalty imposed on the assessee. The assessee's claim of filing SFT on the e-filing portal without providing supporting evidence was not accepted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order. It found that reopening the assessment on an issue already examined and pending before the appellate authorities constituted a change of opinion and was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account was not justified based solely on minor discrepancies at the entry gate and third-party statements without cross-verification. The Tribunal also noted a prior assessment accepting the purchase party's transactions as genuine and a disclosure made by the assessee's director.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that a substantial part of the delay was covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in M.A. No. 21/2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3/2020, reducing the effective delay to 19 days. The Tribunal also considered the medical certificates filed regarding the assessee's son's illness as a sufficient cause for the delay. On the merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to explain and substantiate his grounds. For the addition related to investment in land (Ground No. 2), the Tribunal noted that a similar addition in the assessee's brother's case was deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting that the investment was made by their father. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider this order and grant appropriate relief after verification. For the addition relating to cash credit in the bank account (Ground No. 1), the assessee was granted an opportunity to file necessary evidence and explanations before the AO, who was directed to provide an opportunity and pass an order in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order. It found that reopening the assessment on an issue already examined and pending before the appellate authorities constituted a change of opinion and was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account was not justified based solely on minor discrepancies at the entry gate and third-party statements without cross-verification. The Tribunal also noted a prior assessment accepting the purchase party's transactions as genuine and a disclosure made by the assessee's director.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10-IC electronically was not fatal and that the appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the Form 10-IC and grant relief if other conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC/CIT(A) order was not a speaking order and that the assessee's submissions were not considered. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC/CIT(A) order was not a speaking order and that the assessee's submissions were not considered. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that HUF is not a third party or a corporate entity, but rather represents the members of the family. Following the decision in Pankil Garg Vs PCIT, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit, considering relevant High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal allowed Ground Nos. 1 and 2. It noted that the Assessing Officer did not make additions in the hands of other co-owners, suggesting differential treatment for the assessee was not warranted. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that only two out of four co-owners applied for NA conversion and plotting, and they sold their respective parts, leading to a 50% share in plot sales for each. The Tribunal also observed that the same source of cash received and paid for land purchase was explained and accepted in the case of co-owner Kaushikaben Ramanlal Patel, justifying similar treatment for the assessee. Therefore, the additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits were deleted. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. It reiterated that out of four co-owners, only two applied for NA conversion and plotting, selling their part of the land, thus each having a 50% share in plot sales. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the case of co-owner Kaushikaben Ramanlal Patel, with similar explanations regarding cash received and paid for land purchase, was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, treating the assessee differently was not permissible. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted before the amendment to Section 115BBE came into force, the addition should have been made under the prevailing provisions at that time. Therefore, invoking the amended Section 115BBE, which became effective later, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remitted, the penalty appeal should also be remitted to the CIT(A). Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had repaid the amounts within the assessment year, and the original assessment had already disallowed similar purchases, thus deleting the additions made in reassessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While upholding the AO's action of considering the stamp duty value, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the indexed cost of acquisition based on a revised rate per square meter, considering the assessee's valuer's report and sale instances.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remitted, the penalty appeal should also be remitted to the CIT(A). Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had repaid the amounts within the assessment year, and the original assessment had already disallowed similar purchases, thus deleting the additions made in reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was filed within the period of limitation as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the dismissal by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it partially allowed the appeal by explaining a portion of the cash deposits, but confirmed additions for unexplained deposits and loans.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal from the Surat Bench. The assessee was granted liberty to file the appeal before the Mumbai Benches, with a sympathetic consideration for any delay.