Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances sustained by the CIT(A) in some cases, while dismissing the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The decision considered the Supreme Court's clarification in the Tasgaon Taluka case and found the CIT(A)'s approach reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued beyond the permissible 'surviving period' as per Supreme Court rulings and also lacked the mandatory approval from the competent authority. Therefore, the notice was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimate or ad-hoc basis without concrete evidence of concealment. The restricted disallowance, representing estimated profit, does not fulfill the essential condition for invoking the penalty section.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E.
The Tribunal held that the allowability of the additional sugarcane price depends on whether it was approved by the State government or competent authorities, distinguishing it from profit distribution. The Tribunal noted that the FRP regime differs from older pricing mechanisms.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 36(1)(xvii), the disallowance of the excess sugarcane price paid to members, which is in the nature of profit distribution, is upheld. However, for assessment year 2016-17, where a specific government approval for the price was produced, the disallowance was deleted. The matter was remanded for re-computation of the disallowance in earlier years based on a specific methodology.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence for the cash deposits. The cash book and bank statements of the assessee and his late mother evidenced withdrawals, and there was no material to suggest these funds were utilized for other purposes. The additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 and the subsequent notice under Section 148 were invalid. The notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, and the amount of income that had escaped assessment (Rs. 89,200/-) was below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- stipulated in Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for such re-opening.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be unintentional and due to lack of guidance. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 28, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the notice for reopening under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that the reopening notice was time-barred, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for hearing, the assessee was negligent in filing rejoinders. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the Addl./JCIT(A)'s ex-parte order was violative of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it did not provide a speaking order or adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the AO had mechanically applied the old regime.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address, which constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The principles of natural justice require a sufficient opportunity for the affected party to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and intentional. Principles of natural justice require sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which were related to the assessee caring for his parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal against the original assessment order was still pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 12,29,000/- during the demonetization period, considering it was from available cash balance from regular business sales prior to demonetization. The addition made by the AO was found to be unjustified, and the levy of interest under Section 115BBE was also not sustainable as the primary addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. While non-compliance is serious, the matter was not adjudicated on merits. The assessee raised several factual assertions regarding the year of transfer, nature of property, cost of acquisition, stamp duty valuation, mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2), and her share in the property. These facts were not examined by the AO or CIT(A) due to the assessee's absence. The Tribunal held that assessments should not lead to unjust enrichment of the exchequer due to taxpayer non-participation. Disputes involving valuation, cost of acquisition, year of transfer, and Section 50C require detailed verification, which cannot be done for the first time at the appellate stage. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, as a condition for setting aside the matter. The AO was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was to place all relevant documents on record. The AO was to decide the matter afresh, uninfluenced by the Tribunal's observations.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in initiating penalty proceedings under the wrong section. The PCIT set aside the assessment order, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. However, a previous appeal by the assessee had already resulted in the original assessment order being set aside and remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash balance before the demonetization period and had provided evidence like cash flow statements and invoices. The Tribunal found that the AO's objections were based on suspicion and assumptions, and that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the AO's findings regarding the manipulation of share prices and the lack of financial fundamentals supporting the price movement.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., and Gujarat High Court rulings in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel and Narendra Maganlal Purohit, held that all notices issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 are invalid and time-barred. Since the notice in the present case was issued on 17.05.2021 (and a subsequent one on 31.07.2022), both after the cut-off date, the entire reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds without delving into the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was passed without proper inquiry and application of mind, especially concerning the suspicious LTCG claim flagged by the Investigation Wing. The PCIT's revisionary order was deemed valid and lawful.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was passed without proper inquiry and application of mind, especially concerning the suspicious LTCG claim flagged by the Investigation Wing. The PCIT's revisionary order was deemed valid and lawful.
The CIT(A) condoned the delay and, referring to section 251(1) of the Act, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh evaluation. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the assessee but summarily remanded the case. Similar to various cited cases, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 82,92,950/- under section 69A was correct. However, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) needed to be recomputed due to relief granted on the tax rate. The penalty under section 271F was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the transactions, supported by documentary evidence and similar to a previous case involving the same shares, could not be dismissed on suspicion. The addition on account of LTCG and commission were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 82,92,950/- under section 69A was correct. However, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) needed to be recomputed due to relief granted on the tax rate. The penalty under section 271F was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 82,92,950/- under section 69A was correct. However, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) needed to be recomputed due to relief granted on the tax rate. The penalty under section 271F was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the transactions, supported by documentary evidence and similar to a previous case involving the same shares, could not be dismissed on suspicion. The addition on account of LTCG and commission were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the company was in existence at the time the notice for reopening was issued and continued its business operations. The contention that the company was non-existent during the relevant previous year was not tenable. The CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order and direct a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delay and non-compliance without condoning it. Observing that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard, and considering similar past orders, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restore the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order invalid and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the AO's order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delay and non-compliance without condoning it. Observing that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard, and considering similar past orders, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restore the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had allowed the appeal against the quantum addition. Therefore, if the addition on which the penalty was based is deleted, there is no basis for levying the penalty. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in K.C. Builders vs. ACIT.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) because it found reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that the company was in existence at the time the notice for reopening was issued and continued its business operations. The contention that the company was non-existent during the relevant previous year was not tenable. The CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order and direct a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the Form-26AS clearly showed credits of Rs. 55,99,901/- to the assessee's PAN, with TDS deducted. The assessee's claim of the firm being closed since 2004 and not receiving the income was not supported by cogent evidence, especially the delay in requesting PAN cancellation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons reasonable as the legal heir was unaware of the proceedings. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the appellant to be heard and raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and due to lack of guidance from the previous tax consultant. Considering the principles of natural justice and the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.15,000 to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide materials and evidence to the lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's undertaking to file relevant materials if given another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The AO is directed to redo the assessment with a proper opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal condoned the delay of 313 days and set aside the ex-parte appellate order. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal found the reopening of assessment invalid, as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The original assessment under section 143(3) involved examination of the assessee's books and method of accounting, and all facts were fully disclosed. Therefore, the conditions for reopening under section 147, especially after four years, were not met, rendering the reopening and the consequent addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted as a collection agent and facilitator for e-commerce services. While the AO made an addition for certain parties, the assessee subsequently provided further confirmations. The CIT(A) ignored these confirmations. Given the substantial confirmations provided and the nature of the business, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the intimation order passed under section 143(1) was invalid because the proviso to section 143(1)(a) mandates that no adjustments can be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee, which was not done in this case. This violated statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the intimation order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not warranted as the loans were old and utilized for business purposes, and similar interest payments were allowed in preceding years. Regarding conveyance expenses, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 20% of the disallowed amount, considering past disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) passed the order without waiting for the remand report from the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained money as they were recorded in the books, deficiencies in verifying sales bills meant a portion of the deposits might not be satisfactorily explained. Therefore, an estimated addition was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee and without condoning the delay, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also observed that a similar delay in the case of the assessee's son was condoned and that the ITAT had ruled in favor of the son.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither filed returns nor provided evidence to the AO or CIT(A). The claims about business receipts and profit rates remained unsubstantiated. However, the frequent deposits and withdrawals related to business activities were not examined by the AO due to non-compliance. The Tribunal also considered additional grounds related to the legality of reopening the case, which were raised for the first time.