ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(a) is applicable only when the property is vacant and no rent is received or admitted. Since the property was let out and actual rent was received as per agreements, the AO's estimation of deemed rent was incorrect.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the jewellery addition, finding that the assessee's holdings were within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, considering the family members. However, the addition for unexplained cash was dismissed as the assessee failed to substantiate its source.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in discarding confirmation letters without issuing summons and examining the creditors. The assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a certificate from the Gram Panchayat, to support the construction of the house. The Tribunal found no reason to disallow the deduction claimed under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the total weight of jewellery found (1489.250 grams) was less than the permissible weightage for the family members (1550 grams). Therefore, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover a large portion of the investments, meaning only a smaller portion was funded by borrowed money. Therefore, the disallowance of interest should be proportionate to the amount invested from borrowed funds.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits in a bank passbook or bank statement cannot be treated as credits in the 'books of an assessee' for the purpose of Section 68. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow interest expenditure proportionately to the exempt income (share of profit from the firm) and taxable income (interest received on capital). The assessee's argument for a lesser disallowance was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue of non-deduction of TDS on rent payments was a new issue not arising from the original assessment order. Therefore, the rectification under Section 154 was not permissible, and the additions made were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) could only be claimed in the subsequent assessment year (2014-15) because the recipient filed its return of income for that year, not the impugned year (2013-14).

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities, the AO and the CIT(A), erred in brushing aside the Chartered Engineer's valuation report without assigning reasons. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach of adopting SRO value as FMV was incorrect, as guideline values are not necessarily related to the exact premises. The Tribunal referred to its own prior decision and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in N. Govindaraju Vs. ITO, which distinguished between 'full value of consideration' and 'fair market value'. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should have exercised powers under Section 55(2) to refer the valuation to a valuation officer if he doubted the assessee's adopted FMV, rather than simply adopting the SRO value. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the FMV as certified by the registered valuer's certificate as the cost of acquisition, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the addition made by the AO. The issue of whether the SRO value is equivalent to FMV was decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable due to an unreasonable delay of over 9 months in its service to the assessee. The department failed to provide a reasonable explanation for this delay. Consequently, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made through an agent to small farmers who insisted on cash and lacked bank accounts, and that the payments were genuine and identifiable. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have submitted supporting details to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering the submitted details.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50.00 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue's counsel also accepted this fact.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have examined the objects of the assessee and conducted necessary inquiries before rejecting the 12A registration. The approval for 80G is contingent on 12A registration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and did not address the merits. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty order was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, failing to strike off the irrelevant portion. Consequently, the penalty order was cancelled.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for adjudication on merits.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating it on merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have examined the objects of the assessee and conducted necessary inquiries before rejecting the 12A registration. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the case was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding that the assessment was concluded and the AO could not make additions without incriminating material. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the AO had not made additions and the issues raised were irrelevant to those assessment years.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding that the assessment was concluded and the AO could not make additions without incriminating material. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the AO had not made additions and the issues raised were irrelevant to those assessment years.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding that the assessment was concluded and the AO could not make additions without incriminating material. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the AO had not made additions and the issues raised were irrelevant to those assessment years.