ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2025

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

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 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 appeal was filed by the assessee-trust against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption). The excerpt indicates the appeal is being heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench.

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 is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different assessees against orders from the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption). The appeals are being processed under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal has decided to allow these appeals. The specific reasoning for allowing the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it implies a favorable outcome for the assessees.

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 The appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 decided to remand the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after considering all relevant documents and evidence.

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 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 decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the applications for registration afresh after giving the assessees an opportunity of being heard.

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 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 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 decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order after considering the submissions of the assessees.

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 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 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 decided to remand the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after considering all relevant documents and evidence.

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 decided to remand the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after considering all relevant documents and evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard a group of eleven appeals. The specific decision of the tribunal regarding these appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different assessees. The appeals are directed against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption).

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 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 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 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, 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 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 addressed the additions related to DKD coins. Regarding unexplained investments in DKD coins (Revenue's Ground 1), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had estimated the value at USD 2.5 per coin, which was considered high without evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition at the rate of USD 2.00 per DKD coin, based on the assessee's admission, resulting in a total investment of Rs. 2,51,05,990/-. This led to the dismissal of Revenue's Ground 1 and partial allowance of Assessee's Ground 3. Concerning unaccounted sale of DKD coins in lending and non-lending accounts (Revenue's Ground 2), the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, agreeing that benefits from bonus coins and referral income were not realized as DKD coins were removed from the website. The Tribunal found the AO's addition to be based on presumption. The Tribunal also independently examined the facts and found no evidence of investment beyond 193124 DKD coins or realization of benefits from lending/referral schemes, thus finding no merit in Revenue's Grounds 1 & 2. For ATS coins (Revenue's Grounds 3 & 4), the judgment indicates a mistake in framing the grounds by the AO, with Ground 3 relating to restricting unexplained investment and Ground 4 to deleting addition on sale of bonus coins. The AO's additions were based on seized material. The Tribunal also noted the Assessee's ground regarding the confirmation of additions on crypto-currency investments (Assessee's Ground 3) and house renovation expenditure (Assessee's Ground 4). The judgment does not provide a final decision on ATS coins, undisclosed business receipts, or house renovation expenditure, nor does it address the penalty grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal addressed the issue of unexplained expenditure in house renovation. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,01,57,149/- treating the entire expenditure as unexplained. The CIT(A) restricted this to Rs. 50,12,212/-, allowing credit for amounts debited in the assessee's books (Rs. 51,44,937/-) and noting that some payments were made by cheque. The Tribunal acknowledged that in renovation expenses, cash payments to unorganized sector workers are common and that the assessee had also furnished capital withdrawal details. While the assessee could not fully substantiate all expenses, the Tribunal found the huge addition unjustified. To avoid revenue leakage, the Tribunal directed an ad-hoc disallowance of 25% of the total addition made by the AO, deeming it sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Consequently, Ground No. 6 of the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and Ground No. 4 of the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed. Grounds related to special audit reference and limitation period were dismissed as not pressed due to lack of specific submissions by the assessee's AR. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's cross-appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for not obtaining the audit report, such as being busy with financial arrangements and partners being senior citizens, do not constitute reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal also noted that the purported audit report was not submitted to the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was reasonable and not deliberate or due to gross negligence. The Tribunal reasoned that when technical considerations and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the latter should be preferred. Regarding the quantum appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated Rs. 39.57 lacs as business income under section 44AD and added Rs. 3,16,608/- (8% thereof), but also added the entire cash deposit of Rs. 23.31 lacs separately. The Tribunal, accepting that the assessee was engaged in retail trading of clothes, held that cash and other credits in the bank statement should be considered together for estimating business profit. Following the decision in CIT vs. Subodh Gupta, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider 12% on the cash deposits of Rs. 23,31,000/- as business income, thus partly allowing the assessee's ground of appeal. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable on estimation of income, as it is a settled position in law. Therefore, the entire penalty was deleted, allowing the appeal.

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 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 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 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 condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was reasonable and not deliberate or due to gross negligence. The Tribunal reasoned that when technical considerations and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the latter should be preferred. Regarding the quantum appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated Rs. 39.57 lacs as business income under section 44AD and added Rs. 3,16,608/- (8% thereof), but also added the entire cash deposit of Rs. 23.31 lacs separately. The Tribunal, accepting that the assessee was engaged in retail trading of clothes, held that cash and other credits in the bank statement should be considered together for estimating business profit. Following the decision in CIT vs. Subodh Gupta, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider 12% on the cash deposits of Rs. 23,31,000/- as business income, thus partly allowing the assessee's ground of appeal. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable on estimation of income, as it is a settled position in law. Therefore, the entire penalty was deleted, allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as it was not considered. Recognizing that the additional ground required verification of facts, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry and to provide appropriate relief.

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.