ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was justified, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The assessee's appeal on this ground was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was justified, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The assessee's appeal on this ground was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

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

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 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 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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to both parties to seek restoration if the DVSV-2024 application is not settled.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 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 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 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 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 held that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) erred in invoking his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had indeed conducted necessary inquiries and sought various details from the assessee regarding share capital, share premium, creditworthiness of investors, capital accounts, and balance sheets. The assessee had responded to these queries by furnishing detailed replies, including a valuation report as per Rule 11UA. The PCIT, in his order, did not provide any specific findings on the assessee's crucial submissions, such as the conversion of unsecured loans from directors and relatives into share application money and premium, and the fact that only Rs. 1.00 lakh was received in the current year under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in *CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi* and *CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.*, emphasizing that a difference of opinion or a perceived 'inadequate enquiry' by the PCIT does not automatically render an assessment order erroneous, especially when the AO has taken a legally sustainable view. The Tribunal concluded that the twin conditions prescribed under section 263 were not satisfied, and therefore, the PCIT's order was not justified. The assessment order passed by the AO was deemed legally sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order.

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 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 Tribunal held that while the reopening was justified, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The assessee's appeal on this ground was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

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 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 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 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 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 held that the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer due to bona fide reasons, specifically the recent demise of her husband. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details before the Ld. CIT(A) in the manual regime, which were not considered when the proceedings shifted to the faceless regime. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, with a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal relating to quantum additions (ITA No. 1349/Srt/2024) was allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal relating to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) (ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024) was also restored to the AO, as it was consequential to the quantum additions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 held that the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer due to bona fide reasons, specifically the recent demise of her husband. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details before the Ld. CIT(A) in the manual regime, which were not considered when the proceedings shifted to the faceless regime. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, with a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal relating to quantum additions (ITA No. 1349/Srt/2024) was allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal relating to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) (ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024) was also restored to the AO, as it was consequential to the quantum additions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 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 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 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 deleted the additions on account of fictitious sales and estimated income, finding them to be protective in nature and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted as they were consequential to the quantum additions.

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 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 upheld the deletion of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- as the loans were repaid and accepted by the AO. The addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the CIT(A) had not considered Section 41(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal deleted the additions on account of fictitious sales and estimated income, finding them to be protective in nature and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted as they were consequential to the quantum additions.

The Tribunal deleted the additions on account of fictitious sales and estimated income, finding them to be protective in nature and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted as they were consequential to the quantum additions.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- as the loans were repaid and accepted by the AO. The addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the CIT(A) had not considered Section 41(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal deleted the additions on account of fictitious sales and estimated income, finding them to be protective in nature and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted as they were consequential to the quantum additions.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence provided by the assessee did not establish the existence of the creditor or the genuineness of the transactions. Payments made through banking channels alone were insufficient without corroborative evidence of goods received.

The Tribunal deleted the additions on account of fictitious sales and estimated income, finding them to be protective in nature and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted as they were consequential to the quantum additions.

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 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 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 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 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 condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding it non-intentional, and imposed a cost of Rs. 2000 per appeal. Due to non-compliance at lower stages and ex-parte orders, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional or deliberate and condoned the delay. However, since there was non-compliance before the AO and CIT(A), a cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed in each appeal.

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.