Loading ITAT cases…
51 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying late filing fees could not be enforced for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the returns were filed or processed later. Therefore, the levy of late fee was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying late filing fees could not be enforced for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the returns were filed or processed later. Therefore, the levy of late fee was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B as she was a senior citizen, unaware of the amendment to Section 269SS, and had disclosed the income. Furthermore, the absence of satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings was a fatal flaw.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of late filing fees, could not be enforced for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the returns were filed or processed later. Therefore, the levy of late fee was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form-67 is a procedural aspect and can be considered directory in nature, not mandatory, especially when filed before the assessment order. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and High Court judgments that supported this view.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded its jurisdiction by giving specific directions to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment in a particular manner. Relying on a Madras High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order, thereby restoring the original order passed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the additional legal ground raised by the assessee regarding limitation was not sustainable. It noted that CBDT Notification dated 17th September, 2021, extended the period of limitation up to 31st March, 2022, thus dismissing this ground. On merits, the Tribunal found that the primary objective of Section 269SS is to curb black money. However, in this case, the cash receipt was recorded in the sale deed and partly deposited into the bank account, indicating no suppression of receipts. The assessee also offered the capital gains to tax. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the considered view that the transaction did not attract the provisions of Section 269SS. Furthermore, considering the assessee is a senior citizen and was not aware of the amendment, and in the absence of guilty intention or loss to the revenue, the Tribunal found reasonable and sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 273B. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not recorded satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills. Accordingly, the grounds on merits raised by the assessee were allowed, and the order of the Revenue Authorities was quashed. The appeals for both assessees were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not file its return of income within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1), the subsequent filing of Forms 9A and 10 during the assessment proceedings satisfies the requirement of law. The Tribunal relied on the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India v. DCIT and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Association of Indian Panel board Manufacturer v. DCIT. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the accumulation and setting apart of funds. The addition of Rs. 25,39,000/- made by the AO was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of interest as accrued and reinvested, finding it untenable as reinvestment amounted to receipt. However, the procedural aspect of filing the forms during assessment was allowed.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO under Section 69A, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It ruled that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the source and nature of the cash deposits, as no cash book or comparative statements for cash sales and deposits from prior years were provided. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee's failure to disallow proportionate interest on funds personally utilized by the Managing Partner constituted concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars, thereby justifying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Limited was distinguished as being related to Section 14A.
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, observed that despite opportunities provided by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to appear or comply with the notices. However, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and the totality of facts, and in the interest of providing substantial justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in order to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided that it was a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the capital gains addition but focused on procedural fairness.
For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal dismissed legal grounds against the Section 148A(b) notice and upheld the disallowance of Section 80P deduction due to an invalid (unverified) return. For AY 2020-21, after condoning a delay, the Tribunal ruled that interest income from cooperative bank investments is eligible for Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, thereby allowing the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that a deduction under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P, can only be allowed if a valid return of income is filed. Since the assessee's return was not e-verified, it was considered invalid, and therefore, the deduction could not be allowed. The grounds challenging the reopening were also dismissed.
The Tribunal is considering the appeal against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The case was selected for scrutiny due to the assessee's retraction of disclosures made during a survey.
The tribunal acknowledged the fact of cash withdrawals from the assessee's own bank account but found insufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the reasons for holding such a large amount for over eight months. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the addition to be deleted for the first deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 but confirmed the addition of the remaining Rs. 5,00,000.
The Tribunal condoned the 157-day delay in filing the appeal before it due to reasonable cause. It held that since the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) had already condoned the delay in filing the original return of income for AY 2018-19, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The AO/CPC was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rightly confirmed. It was an undisputed fact that the Managing Partner had a significant debit balance in their capital account, and the firm had obtained an overdraft facility from ICICI Bank, claiming interest on it. The AO observed that no interest was charged from the Managing Partner for utilizing the firm's funds. The assessee did not dispute the proportionate disallowance of interest, except for minor calculation errors. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee's failure to disallow interest proportionately on the funds utilized by the Managing Partner constituted concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal distinguished the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Limited, noting that the disallowance in that case was under Section 14A, whereas in the present case, the assessee ought to have made a proportionate disallowance of interest. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking independent findings. Due to the Assessing Officer's failure to file a remand report and the assessee's lack of compliance during the original assessment, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to produce the cash book before the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority. However, considering the plea for natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking independent findings. Due to the Assessing Officer's failure to file a remand report and the assessee's lack of compliance during the original assessment, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee the liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeal if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted conflicting observations by the Ld. CIT(A) and AO regarding the submission of bank statements. To ensure natural justice and a thorough re-examination, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, directing the AO to verify the source of cash deposits and the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeal if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by the Revenue. Such an application must be filed within the time limit prescribed by the Act.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking independent findings. Due to the Assessing Officer's failure to file a remand report and the assessee's lack of compliance during the original assessment, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting explanations but found the assessee's claim of accumulated savings and family financial support for ₹15,00,000/- of the cash deposits to be plausible based on circumstantial evidence. Consequently, relief was granted for ₹15,00,000/-, while the remaining ₹2,50,000/- of the addition under Section 69A was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order lacked a proper discussion on why the trust's objectives were deemed non-charitable or the utility of funds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh examination and to pass a speaking order.
The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated failure to appear or provide documents. The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's lapses but considering the substantial addition and principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity, conditional on their cooperation.
The Tribunal admitted the additional judicial documents, subject to a payment, noting that they were crucial to the case and their admission would not prejudice the Revenue. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with directions to consider these documents and pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 199 days in filing the appeals, citing reasonable and sufficient cause, and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals on merits. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Given that the assessee's grievance regarding the TDS credit was resolved in the subsequent Section 143(3) assessment, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal filed before the ITAT. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the ITAT allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 199 days in filing the appeals, citing reasonable and sufficient cause, and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals on merits. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that section 54F of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2014, effective from 01.04.2015, allows deduction for investment in one residential house in India. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments of the Revenue's representative (Ld. DR) that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F for a single residential unit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the capital gains and allow the deduction under section 54F of the Act for one residential unit in accordance with its provisions. The grounds raised by the revenue were therefore partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not furnished bank statements and capital gains computation to the AO. However, the assessee submitted these documents as additional evidence before the ITAT under Rule 29. To provide an opportunity to the assessee and in adherence to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to adjudicate the case on merits based on the additional evidence produced by the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee were disposed of statistically. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes to facilitate a fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned an 86-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine cause. However, on merits, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessee voluntarily filed an incorrect application and failed to comply with notices, and its plea of ignorance regarding the provisions of the Act was not acceptable. The Tribunal ruled that it is not the duty of the Ld. CIT(E) to guide the assessee.
The Tribunal, noting bank statements showing debits of Rs. 13,00,000/- and Rs. 11,65,000/- and a confirmation from SBI for loans totaling Rs. 24,65,000/- availed by the assessee, found merit in the AR's arguments. It directed the AO to verify these loans and, if found correct, to treat the cash deposits as explained and make no addition.
The Tribunal condoned an 86-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine cause. However, on merits, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessee voluntarily filed an incorrect application and failed to comply with notices, and its plea of ignorance regarding the provisions of the Act was not acceptable. The Tribunal ruled that it is not the duty of the Ld. CIT(E) to guide the assessee.
The Tribunal determined that the assessee's income from nursery and agricultural farm operations is indeed agricultural income, fully exempt under section 10(1). It observed that revenue authorities had accepted this character of income in prior and subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal concluded that merely misreporting income in the return should not preclude the assessee from claiming exemption, therefore directing the AO to delete the addition and setting aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. It further ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature and therefore not applicable to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeal if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by the Revenue. Such an application must be filed within the time limit prescribed by the Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal again if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. This allows the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application for reinstatement of the appeals within the prescribed time limit if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal again if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. This allows the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application for reinstatement of the appeals within the prescribed time limit if necessary.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, citing Supreme Court precedents. The appeals were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits after providing the assessee a sufficient opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the filing of an audit report (Form 56F) is procedural and can be furnished at any time until the completion of assessment or even at the appeal stage. Citing judicial precedents and noting that a specific due date requirement for Section 10AA claims was introduced only from A.Y. 2024-25 by Finance Bill, 2023, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the enhanced deduction as the revised Form 56F was filed during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, citing Supreme Court precedents. The appeals were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits after providing the assessee a sufficient opportunity of hearing.
Following its consistent view and that of other benches, the Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply to sale consideration received at the time of registration of a property, as it refers only to sums received as advance or otherwise. Therefore, it found no violation of Section 269SS and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under Section 271D.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. It clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme by the Revenue, the assessee would be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for the assessee to approach the Tribunal if the settlement is not accepted by the Department.
The tribunal concurred with the Departmental Representative, stating that the appeals ought to have been filed before the ITAT Bengaluru, as the assessee's original jurisdiction is Mangaluru. Consequently, the ITAT Visakhapatnam dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration received by the assessee as per the sale deed should be adopted for computing capital gains. This was based on a previous decision involving related parties where the property was under dispute due to proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.
The tribunal concurred with the Departmental Representative, stating that the appeals ought to have been filed before the ITAT Bengaluru, as the assessee's original jurisdiction is Mangaluru. Consequently, the ITAT Visakhapatnam dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.