Loading ITAT cases…
988 tribunal orders from the Surat bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 988 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of cash deposits, requiring the assessee to provide complete details of agricultural activities, expenses, and their sources.
The Tribunal held that income from VDAs is taxed under section 115BBH at a flat rate of 30%, and this specific provision does not allow for the rebate under section 87A. While section 115BAC(1A) provides for a rebate under certain conditions, the income taxed under section 115BBH falls under a different regime and is therefore not eligible for the rebate under section 87A. The proviso to section 87A, effective from 1/04/2024, allows rebate when total income is chargeable under section 115BAC(1A) and does not exceed Rs. 7 lakh. However, the assessee's VDA income is taxed separately under section 115BBH, making the section 87A rebate inapplicable in this scenario.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the Supreme Court's directions in the Rajeev Bansal case, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the Supreme Court's directions in the Rajeev Bansal case, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating they had no power to grant immunity under section 270AA and that the assessee did not fall within the exceptions of section 270A(6). The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 68 was only one day, a procedural lapse, and relied on previous decisions where such delays were not a bar to immunity.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found an apparent inconsistency between the recitals in the registered sale deeds and the notarised possession letters regarding the timing and manner of cash payments for land purchase. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was premature due to lack of detailed verification of documentary evidence and reconciliation of discrepancies. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination to verify date-wise cash payments, their sources, and reconciliation with registered instruments.
The Tribunal held that the approach of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the second issue (addition of Rs. 93,25,310/-) was unsustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that once an assessment is framed under Section 143(3), the correctness of adjustments forming part of the assessed income, including those from a prior Section 143(1) intimation, should have been examined by the AO during scrutiny. If raised before the CIT(A), these issues fall within his appellate jurisdiction. The CIT(A) was duty-bound to examine the claim on merits, either by calling for a remand report or adjudicating independently. Since the CIT(A) neither examined the factual claim nor called for verification, the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the allowability of amounts under Section 43B, after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment does not explicitly state a finding or reasoning on the first issue (disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii)), but the overall result indicates that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the issues were not finally decided on merits by the Tribunal, or that the primary relief was granted on the second issue.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68, finding the assessee's explanation improbable. However, to avoid double taxation, it directed that the corresponding sales credited in the books should be excluded from taxable income if the addition is sustained.
The Tribunal found that while the buyers were identifiable, the genuineness of the cash explanation was doubtful. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2022, regarding the application of accumulated funds, is prospective and does not apply to accumulations made prior to AY 2023-24. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The CIT(A) set aside the AO's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication without deciding the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the assessee, specifically the issue of the notice being issued to a deceased person. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the jurisdictional issue first.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. The assessee contended that they were not given adequate opportunity of hearing due to circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was partly allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/-, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee operates in the transportation sector, which is largely unorganized and cash-intensive, and that retention money from drivers is a common practice. The Tribunal found that the deposits were recorded in the books of account, and the AO had not rejected the books. Therefore, the foundational precondition of 'not recorded in books' for section 69A was absent. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated the entire Rs. 35,00,000/- with adequate verifiable evidence. Considering the cash-intensive nature of the business and the need to plug revenue leakage, the Tribunal estimated an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained and unsubstantiated. This meant further relief of Rs. 25,00,000/- was granted, sustaining an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The ground challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was dismissed as premature, as no penalty had yet been levied, and the assessee would have an opportunity to contest it if and when levied.
The Tribunal held that the principle of consistency requires that if the department accepts a factual position in earlier years, it should not be disturbed in subsequent years without material change or contrary evidence. The assessee had consistently declared agricultural income in prior years which was accepted by the department. The documents submitted by the assessee substantiated the agricultural activity.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT passed the order under Section 263 without providing the assessee with adequate notice and opportunity for hearing, which violates principles of natural justice. Although the PCIT observed non-compliance with show-cause notices, the fact of non-service of these notices was not contested by the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10IC, noting technical glitches and a Gujarat High Court decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to process the assessee's return under Section 115BAA of the Act, subject to verification of other conditions, and to provide an opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging the assessee's reasonable cause for non-compliance due to counsel's actions and personal issues. However, it found some laxity on the assessee's part, leading to a partial reduction in the penalty.
The Tribunal held that statutory notices issued to a deceased person are invalid and not legally sustainable. Proceedings conducted against a dead person are considered a nullity. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 144 and the order of the CIT(A) are quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not sustainable as it was passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee as it was crucial for proper adjudication. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not dispute the fact that the assessee, along with his brother, jointly owned and cultivated agricultural land. The assessee had provided details of agricultural produce and expenses, which were not disproved. The increase in income was attributed to the brother not taking his share in that particular year.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence due to substantial cause and the need for proper adjudication. Given the ex-parte proceedings and the relevance of the new evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo examination.
The tribunal noted that the AO relied on an investigation wing report stating the purchases were bogus. However, the assessee claimed the transactions were genuine and supported by evidence. The tribunal observed that the case might not have been properly adjudicated by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it not deliberate. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations for non-compliance before lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are met.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason genuine. It held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of delay, as the time limit had been extended by CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also noted that the merits of the application were not discussed.
The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal concerning the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on interest and dividend income earned from a cooperative bank. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Ashwanikumar Arban Co-operative Society Ltd. and PCIT vs. Rajkot Lodhika Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., which held that such income is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation but found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without a proper hearing. The Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the CIT(A) had ignored the assessee's reasons for the delay and passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and verification, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently provided details of cash withdrawal and deposit, along with supporting documents like bank statements and property deeds. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal felt that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a reply to the AO, which was not considered while passing the ex-parte order under section 144. The Ld. AR also stated that the reply and documents submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) were not considered, and the appeal was dismissed without a remand report. The assessee's business activities were explained, involving collection of payments and subsequent transfer to the company, with the assessee earning commission. Considering these facts, the Tribunal was inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The issue regarding the invocation of section 115BBE was not expressly decided as the matter was remanded. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the material, decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand both matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the addition was covered by increased agricultural income and bank withdrawals, and that agricultural income was accepted in a subsequent assessment year. For AY 2017-18, the assessee requested another opportunity. The Tribunal found it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO. The assessee is directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The AO is at liberty to pass appropriate orders if the assessee fails to comply. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to the actions of their tax consultant, who failed to provide access to crucial communications and kept the assessee in the dark regarding proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee suffered due to the mistake of their appointed representative. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that while the Ld. CIT(A) issued multiple notices, there was no finding in the impugned order that these notices were properly served on the appellant. Observing the lack of proper service of notices and considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in future hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The issue of the addition under Section 69A was not decided on merits but was to be adjudicated by the AO upon remand.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to comply with three notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in an ex-parte order. The Tribunal observed that there was no proper adjudication of the case. Accepting the request of the Ld. AR, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment was ex-parte under section 144. In the interest of justice and considering the facts, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The issue of taxability under section 115BBE and the calculation of interest were not adjudicated on merits as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025, noting the revenue's lack of serious objection. Regarding the ex-parte order by the NFAC, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that notices were not received at the physical address mentioned in Form-35, despite being sent via email. Observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) and NFAC issued notices but the assessee did not comply, the Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be met by re-adjudicating the issue afresh by the AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within two weeks. This order sets aside the CIT(A)'s order and remits the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence. Consequently, the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 386/SRT/2025, as the quantum additions were restored to the AO, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was also restored for fresh adjudication, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 387/SRT/2025, the Tribunal noted the penalty was for non-compliance due to a tax consultant's mistake. It directed the AO to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(d), deleting penalties for two defaults and imposing for one, thus partly allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have filed Form-10 on 16.09.2017 for AY 2016-17 for accumulating Rs. 43,60,000/-. However, upon perusal of the Forms filed, it was observed that the Form-10 filed for AY 2016-17 showed an amount set apart of only Rs. 19,60,000/- with the accumulation period ending on 31.03.2021. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that for accumulations relating to the financial year 2016-17, the assessee had a time window till 31.03.2023 to utilize the income. The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature and would be applicable only to fresh accumulations from assessment year 2023-24 onwards. Therefore, the amendment did not debar the assessee from availing the time window for existing accumulations. The Tribunal also noted that for the impugned assessment year, no addition could be made for accumulation of income pertaining to financial year 2017-18, as the assessee continued to be guided by the provisions existing at the relevant time, including the six-year time window. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay of 1261 days and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-educated and lacked sufficient knowledge of income tax matters, and that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. Citing the principles of natural justice and the expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the case on merit. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the 'Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF)'. The assessee was also directed to be more careful and furnish necessary details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to payment of costs, considering the principles of natural justice and substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to be more vigilant and cooperative.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and ex-parte orders at both assessment and CIT(A) levels. Despite this, considering the interest of justice and the need for a fair hearing, an opportunity was granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) relied on decisions of the ITAT Surat Bench in Ravi Mahexa vs. ITO and Hasmukh Kanjiobhai Tadhani vs. ITO, and ITAT Mumbai Benches in Ajit Bapu Satam vs. ITO. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,65,00,100/- during demonetization, claiming it was from bank withdrawals. The assessee provided cash books for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and bank statements showing withdrawals. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had sufficient sources for the cash deposits, as evidenced by the cash book, and that the AO could not disprove the cash balance. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO could not reject the cash book without proper reasons and that the cash deposited could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and confirmed it. Grounds (i) to (iii) of the Revenue's appeal were related to the addition, while grounds (iv) and (v) were general.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been adequately heard and that new submissions were being made. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.