ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a legally sustainable view by accepting the assessee's contention regarding the proviso to Section 50C, which was based on the agreement to sell date. The revision by the PCIT was considered a change of opinion and did not meet the twin conditions of Section 263.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. For Ground No. 1, the addition of Rs. 35,64,800/- was restricted to 20% to avoid revenue leakage. For Ground No. 2, the levy of tax under section 115BBE was disallowed as the section was not retrospective, and the addition was to be taxed at the normal rate.

The Tribunal noted that while no formal application was filed for admitting additional evidence, it considered the contention in the interest of natural justice. The issue of the extent of agricultural income and the supporting evidence, including land holding and rental agreements, was found to require fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was largely non-cooperative during both assessment and appellate proceedings, with hearings fixed multiple times but no substantial details or explanations provided. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the revenue had no objection. The tribunal considered the submissions and the facts, including the application under DTVSV-2024 and payment of tax.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had decided the matter ex parte due to the applicant's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessees one more opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had decided the matter ex parte and that the assessees were not granted sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was violated as the assessees were not granted adequate opportunity for a fair hearing. The assessee's counsel undertook to be more vigilant in future compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte due to non-compliance by the applicants and lack of adjournment requests. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal felt that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessees to present their case and file requisite documents. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. Considering that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee at the correct email address, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee was directed to be more vigilant in future.

The Tribunal considered the request to withdraw the appeal as the revenue had no objection. The appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided ample documentary evidence, including invoices, ledger accounts, and GST portal data, demonstrating that the purchases were genuinely made from M/s Om Jewellers, not the entity alleged by the revenue. As the lower authorities failed to controvert this evidence or provide corroborative proof for their claim, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs.10,87,012/- was unwarranted and ordered its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had decided the matters ex parte due to the non-compliance of the applicant. However, in the interest of justice and to uphold the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case. The orders of CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) decided the matter ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The principles of natural justice require the affected party to be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 193 days in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed the order ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. However, acknowledging the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte without granting sufficient opportunity for hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee's contention that they were ready to submit documents and needed one more opportunity was accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had decided the matters ex parte. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require that an affected party be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remit the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was violated as the assessees were not given adequate opportunity for a fair hearing. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and submission of necessary details.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) decided the matter ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the CIT(E) were ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal. The revenue's representative had no objection. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's participation in the DTVSV-2024 scheme and payment of the determined tax, dismissed the appeal as 'withdrawn'. It granted liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if the DTVSV-2024 application is not finally settled for any reason.

The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the submitted documents. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee and the revenue. Since the assessee had opted for the VSVS Scheme and the revenue had no objection, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the submissions. The assessee had filed an application under DTVSV-24 and paid the tax. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the debit entries related to purchases in the bank accounts. Citing various precedents, it held that only the profit component of sales, and not the entire gross receipts, can be treated as income. Thus, the Tribunal directed the AO to tax only 10% of the disputed cash deposits of Rs. 77,13,800/-. Additionally, it ruled that the enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE is not applicable for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation of the land as of 01/04/1981 and the sale date should be accepted. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54B was accepted, directing the AO to verify and allow the relief, relying on the High Court decision in CIT Vs Mitesh Impex. The reopening was considered valid due to the AO's reasonable belief of escaped income.

The Tribunal observed that the case was not properly adjudicated, noting that the AO did not investigate the issue sufficiently and did not provide the assessee with adequate time or opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also questioned the legal basis for treating accommodation entries as total income.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee, such as being busy with creditors and senior citizen partners, do not constitute a "reasonable cause" for not getting the accounts audited under Section 44AB. The court also noted that the purported audit report was not submitted to the lower authorities, and the assessee's stand was contradictory. The decisions relied upon by the assessee were found to be based on distinguishable facts. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was rightly levied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-cooperative but found that notices were sent to the wrong email address, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity for a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not issue notice u/s 250 of the Act and failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. It was noted that the CIT(A) merely repeated the AO's findings.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not aware of the assessment and appellate proceedings due to a communication error, which led to a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and found that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's non-compliance was not intentional or deliberate but due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically incorrect email communication. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding it not intentional. On quantum, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider 12% of the cash deposits of Rs. 23,31,000/- as business income, applying the presumptive taxation principle under section 44AD, given the assessee's retail trading business. The penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was entirely deleted, as it is not leviable on income estimated under presumptive assessment.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the cost of acquisition and had added the entire deemed value. The CIT(A) had also not accepted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the cost of acquisition, the fair market value as of 01.04.1981, and the claim for exemption under section 54F.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 17 days, finding it not inordinate or intentional. However, since both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to lack of proper explanation/evidence from the assessee, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.