Loading ITAT cases…
43 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the ground regarding the invalidity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not argued by the assessee's counsel, and therefore, this ground was rejected. However, on the merits of the capital gains addition, the Tribunal found that the Joint Development Agreement, which was the basis for levying capital gains tax, was clearly cancelled by both parties. The Tribunal noted that no construction had commenced on the land. Crucially, the Tribunal found no proof that the assessee had received Rs. 70.80 lakhs as alleged by the AO, and the department could not establish this receipt. Consequently, the entire addition for short-term capital gains was deleted. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal held that since the primary addition itself was deleted, the consequent penalty had no basis. The Tribunal reasoned that no income was acquired by the assessee, and hypothetical income could not be taxed. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. The assessee's appeals were allowed in both cases.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits and the sources of investment/expenditure related to games. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 for each assessment year.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting that the assessee was abroad during the original proceedings and could not furnish the documents. Since these documents prima facie substantiate the deductions claimed, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition when the AO had already vacated it. It further condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons. It was noted that the AO had subsequently vacated the impugned addition of LTCG through a Section 154 order. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the AO for re-verification and to vacate the addition if found correct.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate a specific ground of appeal challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148, leading to a piecemeal disposal. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of that ground.
The ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct proper enquiries into the genuineness of purchases and cash credits. The CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, especially given the appellant's reason for delay. The tribunal found no evidence of fictitious transactions or defects in audited books and concluded that adhoc additions without enquiry are not permissible.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting that the assessee was abroad during the original proceedings and could not furnish the documents. Since these documents prima facie substantiate the deductions claimed, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits and the sources of investment/expenditure related to games. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 for each assessment year.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment was not properly justified and the Joint Development Agreement was cancelled by both parties because the builder failed to obtain necessary permissions and commence construction. There was no proof of the assessee receiving the Rs. 70.80 lakhs, nor was the land transferred. Therefore, the addition and the consequential penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's clarification that while an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage in trade or business for consideration, it can do so if the activities are connected to its GPU objects and receipts do not exceed 20% of total receipts. The Tribunal noted that the previous order did not consider the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was set aside, the additions made therein would not survive, and consequently, the penalty levied on those additions would also not survive. The Tribunal also found merit in the argument that the penalty notice lacked clarity by not specifying the exact limb under section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was proposed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction. It held that Section 80A(5) mandates that a deduction can only be claimed in a return of income filed under the Act, and failure to do so disentitles the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide medical reasons. On merits, while upholding the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- under Section 69A, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 8,50,000/-, allowing Rs. 2,50,000/- as unexplained based on CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. The Tribunal also held that the enhanced tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE was applicable for AY 2017-18, following a Division Bench judgment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the inordinate delay of 474 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not substantiated by the medical certificates, as they pertained to a period much subsequent to the due date. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation and cannot be granted merely on equitable grounds or due to negligence.
The Tribunal held that while rejecting book results is permissible, the estimation of income must be based on a logical and reasonable basis. It directed the AO to estimate the income based on the weighted average profit rate of the preceding two assessment years which were subjected to scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking and reasoned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal allowed the amortization of leasehold rights. For the royalty payment adjustment, while agreeing that separate benchmarking was impermissible, the matter was set aside to the AO due to a discrepancy in operating costs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The explanation regarding the inability to download the intimation was found incomprehensible and lacking bona fides.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B, as the power to set aside is limited to assessments made under section 144. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to his file for re-adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons justifiable due to the CIT(A)'s improper service of notices and the non-consideration of the assessee's rejoinder to the AO's remand report. The case was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider the previously filed rejoinder. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the death of the assessee and the illiteracy of the legal heir. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order passed in the name of the deceased assessee was invalid and could not be sustained. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after impleading the legal heir.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in summarily adopting the stamp valuation authority's value as deemed sale consideration under Section 50C without referring the matter to the 'Valuation Cell' for determining the Fair Market Value (FMV). Citing the Calcutta High Court judgment in *Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT*, the Tribunal emphasized that the AO, as a quasi-judicial authority, has a duty to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell for fair treatment, even if the assessee did not explicitly request it. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s and AO's orders.
The Tribunal held that since the tax liability on the addition was reduced to 30%, the consequential penalty under section 271AAC(1) should also be restricted to 10% of the revised tax liability. The matter was set aside to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The subsequent provisos to Section 149 did not extend the limitation period prescribed by the first proviso.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's medical ailments and the accountant's oversight. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while rejecting book results is permissible, the estimation of income must be based on a logical and reasonable basis. It directed the AO to estimate the income based on the weighted average profit rate of the preceding two assessment years which were subjected to scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 of the Act was quashed by the High Court, the consequential assessment order and the CIT(A) order upholding it cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) also cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 of the Act was quashed by the High Court, the consequential assessment order and the CIT(A) order upholding it cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) also cannot survive.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee-firm was dissolved in 2014 and its business was taken over by a proprietor. While the facts presented by the assessee instilled confidence, the lower authorities had not factually verified the claim. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the 'first proviso' to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO based on this invalid notice was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the money received by the assessee was an accommodation entry. The assessee had provided substantial evidence, including sales invoices, VAT paid, and quantitative details of goods sold, demonstrating that the transactions were part of their regular business. The Revenue could not disprove the assessee's contention that the money received from SRMUCS was sale consideration. The onus was on the Department to prove the money was unexplained, which they failed to do. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is not expected to prove the source of funds from SRMUCS, as SRMUCS was not under the assessee's control. The assessee had furnished all particulars to the lower authorities promptly. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with the assessee's explanation and evidence, and no further enquiries were deemed necessary. Furthermore, since the money was received through banking channels and admitted in the assessee's regular books of accounts, treating it as an accommodation entry would amount to double taxation. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was confirmed, and the addition made by the Ld. AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Ld.AO was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This ambiguity, coupled with a confused finding by the AO that the assessee was guilty of both, rendered the notice defective.
The CIT(A) held that condonation of delay is not automatic and requires a "sufficient cause" supported by cogent evidence. Since the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence for the reasons stated, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed in-limine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the medical reasons provided. The core of the decision revolved around the invalidity of the notice issued under Section 148A due to a lack of proper sanction from the prescribed authority, as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, given that more than three years had elapsed since the end of the assessment year. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting this view.
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12.51 lakhs as the assessee failed to furnish concrete evidence for the source of deposits. However, it ruled that the applicable tax rate for this unexplained cash should be 30% and not 60%, citing precedents from other ITAT benches and High Courts that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE imposing a 60% tax rate are not applicable for A.Y. 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that while registration under Section 12A/12AB is a precondition for exemption under Section 11, it is cardinal principle that gross receipts should not be taxed but only net profit. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the expenditure claimed by the assessee that is relevant to earning the income and then tax the net income.
The Tribunal found that substantial documentary evidence, including an affidavit, gift deed, and confirmation letter from the daughter, was available but not properly considered by the lower authorities. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the inordinate delay of 918 days in filing the present appeal was not a sufficient cause and amounted to an 'eye wash'. Relying on Supreme Court judgments regarding limitation, the Tribunal found the delay inordinate and not backed by any justifiable reason.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning based on the surplus of credits over withdrawals was flawed. It directed the AO to verify if the bank transactions solely pertained to the assessee's business as a commission agent in prawn culture.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal, concerning jurisdictional issues, should be considered first. The CIT(A) had relied on decisions from the Bombay, Telangana, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts to hold that the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under section 148 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada, was without jurisdiction as it was not issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Consequently, the assessment order dated 27.03.2023 was also held to be without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mr. Kishan Kumar Thotakura & Ors. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, and a coordinate bench decision in No.368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited v. ITO, held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, as provided in Section 144B r.w Section 151A of the Act and the 'E-Assessment Scheme of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022', are bad and illegal. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in quashing the reassessment notice and the assessment order. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed. As the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the assessee's cross-objection became academic and infructuous and was also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that while there is a cleavage of opinion among High Courts and the issue is pending before the Supreme Court, it would follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision.