ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the assessee's withdrawal application. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to both parties to seek restoration if the DVSV-2024 application is not settled.

The Tribunal held that the decision in the quantum appeal would impact the penalty order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the appeal relating to the quantum additions.

The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request for withdrawal. The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal, following various High Court and ITAT decisions, held that the reopening of the assessment was justified. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance of 100% was excessive and restricted the addition to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the industry's profit margin. The appeals for AY 2009-10 were also handled similarly.

The Tribunal held that the reason for rejection by the CIT(E) was not justified, as there is no legal requirement for a charitable trust to be registered with the Charity Commissioner before obtaining 12A registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to decide the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reason for rejection was not justified, as there is no legal requirement for a charitable trust to be registered with the Charity Commissioner before obtaining registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal noted that the assessee already had provisional registration and was pursuing its activities.

The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to both parties to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if the DTVSV-2024 settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation. The PCIT failed to provide specific reasons to overturn the AO's view, differentiating between a 'lack of inquiry' and a mere 'difference of opinion'. As the assessee predominantly converted prior-year loans into equity shares and only Rs.1.00 lakh was a fresh credit in the current year, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that uploading notices on the ITBA portal alone is not considered proper service as per the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee's non-representation was not intentional. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's written request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme benefit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchases. However, based on various judicial precedents, including decisions of the ITAT and High Courts, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial offer of GP was on an estimation basis during the survey, and the final declared GP of 17.19% was based on consulting accounts. Therefore, it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, stating that the assessee has availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme. The Tribunal acknowledged the request and the documentation provided.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's ex-husband managed her finances and tax matters, and she was unaware of the proceedings. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for delay, which was attributed to the marital discord and divorce. Considering these circumstances and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal, relying on High Court decisions, held that the reopening by the AO was justified. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal noted that while the AO disallowed 100% of the bogus purchases and the CIT(A) restricted it to 12.5%, prevailing judicial pronouncements suggest a restriction to 6% of the disputed bogus purchases, reflecting the profit margin in the industry.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and did not fall under the exceptions of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, in light of the circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with a liberty for recall if re-verification shows a higher tax effect or an exception applies.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the present appeal. The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal based on the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced rate of tax under section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Regarding the addition of Rs.11,69,500/-, the Tribunal considered the assessee's submissions about cash sales and opening balance, and directed that 30% of the cash deposit be added to the total income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the non-compliance with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and the inadequate representation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) in the interest of justice.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that though some details were filed, they were not verifiable due to lack of supporting documentary evidence. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given very short hearing dates during assessment and did not get adequate opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's bona fide reasons for non-appearance and the procedural oversight where her previously filed details were not considered by the CIT(A) in the faceless regime. In the interest of justice, both the appeal concerning quantum additions and the related penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) were restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration after providing due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided details to the AO, but failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice and the quantum of additions, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was violative of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to provide a speaking order. Considering the circumstances, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to contest the case on merit.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by ignoring the details submitted by the assessee regarding booking advances and subsequent refunds. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the evidence and pass appropriate orders, directing the assessee to present a simplified chart of refunds.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the Jurisdictional Surat Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2017-18 and 2015-16, where similar additions were deleted. The previous order stated that it was the bank's mistake to use the assessee's PAN for the account of Anup S. Gandhi, and thus the transactions did not belong to the assessee firm.

The Tribunal noted that a similar addition in the case of the assessee's wife was deleted by the ITAT. The Tribunal agreed that since the substantive addition was already made and accepted by the main group, the protective addition in the assessee's hands should be deleted. Similarly, penalty proceedings were found to be unsustainable due to the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's ground regarding the validity of reopening of assessment, setting aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- by the CIT(A) for repaid loans, citing High Court decisions. The addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- for outstanding loans was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the CIT(A)'s finding was not in accordance with law and the assessee's documents were not examined.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions and penalties were deleted in the case of the assessee's wife, relying on previous ITAT and High Court decisions. The Tribunal found no reason to differ and deleted the additions and penalties.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions and penalties were deleted in the case of the assessee's wife, and also relied on a High Court decision stating that penalty cannot be initiated on a protective assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions and penalties in most of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that a similar case involving the assessee's wife was decided in favor of the assessee, where substantive additions were deleted. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the prior decision, especially as the additions were made on a protective basis and the primary addition was sustained elsewhere. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the protective additions and related penalties.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition for the main group had already been accepted, making the protective addition in the assessee's hands unnecessary. Regarding penalty, the Tribunal relied on High Court decisions stating that penalty cannot be levied on a protective assessment and deleted the penalty. The Tribunal found the facts similar to a previous case where similar additions and penalties were deleted.

The CIT(A) upheld the addition, agreeing with the AO that the assessee's explanation for the cash balance and deposits was an afterthought and not supported by corroborative evidence. An additional ground regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE at an enhanced rate was admitted and allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity and genuineness of the transaction with the purported overseas supplier. The additional evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove the existence of the creditor or the transactions. Banking transactions alone were not deemed sufficient without corroborative evidence of goods or services received.

The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was quashed by the ITAT, there was no basis for the additions made in the consequential assessment order. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- in unsecured loans by the CIT(A) was justified as these loans were repaid and accepted by the AO. However, the addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- for outstanding unsecured loans was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the CIT(A) had not properly examined the assessee's evidence. The commission expenses were deleted as consequential. The assessee's ground regarding the validity of reopening was admitted and remitted to the CIT(A).

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, and the CIT-DR had no objection. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and void ab initio. This is based on established legal principles and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's affidavit explaining the reasonable cause for non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the non-compliance with notices due to communication issues and lack of proper hearing opportunities. Considering the principle of natural justice and the affidavit filed by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were general and lacked corroborative evidence, thus not constituting a "sufficient cause" for condonation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the appellant's non-appearance on multiple hearing dates, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings, both before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, despite opportunities. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that it has the inherent power to dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution when the appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that a significant portion was covered by Supreme Court orders and the delay was not intentional or deliberate. The Tribunal found that both lower authorities had passed orders without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to a one-day delay was not in accordance with the law. Since December 22, 2019, was a Sunday, the appeal filed on the next working day, December 23, 2019, was within the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as 'withdrawn'. Liberty was granted to both parties to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if the Vivad se Visvas Scheme application is not settled.