HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the Gross Profit rate at 6% on the alleged bogus purchases, affirming that documentation was provided but complete onus was not discharged. Regarding the Rs. 12.60 Lacs addition, the Tribunal confirmed its deletion by the CIT(A), finding no corroboration or evidence linking the WhatsApp chat between two independent parties to the assessee.

the Ld. CIT(A) It is observed from the appellate order that several notices were issued during the course of appellate proceedings; however, the assessee did not appear nor filed any documentary evidence in support of his case. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to explain the source of cash deposits.4. B

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's repeated non-compliance during both assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering principles of natural justice and the substantial nature of the addition, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate, furnish all necessary evidences, and deposit ₹10,000/- as cost to the PGI Poor Patients Welfare Fund within one month, failing which adverse inference may be drawn.

SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-verify the land's distance from municipal limits, examine the claim of 'Biana' (advance) for cash deposits, and apply cost indexation if the land is ultimately found to be a capital asset.

the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper factual verification regarding capital gains on jointly owned property and adherence to natural justice principles. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperative conduct during earlier proceedings.

SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully invested the net sales consideration of Rs.115.18 Lacs by 30-12-2014, fulfilling the investment requirement for Section 54F. It observed that delays in obtaining necessary permissions were beyond the assessee's control and that Section 54F should be construed liberally. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54F, while confirming an addition of Rs.84,940.

SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to unfulfilled document requirements, while the assessee contended that no notice for further evidence was received. To ensure natural justice and provide an adequate opportunity to be heard, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a de-novo order, with the assessee directed to cooperate by providing necessary documents.

SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal, considering natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order. The CIT(E) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is in turn directed to cooperate by filing necessary documents and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2024, reintroduced Section 251(1)(a) allowing the CIT(A) to set aside assessments for fresh verification of records, especially where natural justice principles were violated. The ITAT concluded that the remand ensures the assessment is based on actual evidence rather than estimates and found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s approach.

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer mechanically invoked section 144 without duly considering the assessee's replies, violating principles of natural justice. It also noted that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order or properly adjudicate the appeal under section 250(6). Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, especially since the matter involved a substantial addition under section 69A requiring proper factual examination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for their conduct.

me is that the authorities below erred in not granting credit of TCS as reflected in Form 26AS, merely on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. The assessee has demonstrated that the TCS stands duly reflected in the Annual Tax Statement (Form 26AS).

The Tribunal held that the claim for TCS credit, reflected in Form 26AS, was not a fresh claim but arose from statutory records, and its denial on technical grounds would lead to unjust enrichment. Citing the Supreme Court's Goetze (India) Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate authorities have wide powers to entertain such claims. Therefore, it set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the Assessing Officer/CPC to grant the TCS credit.

SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Code, the present appeals against the assessee could not continue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable, with a provision for either party to seek revival if circumstances change in the future.

SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal ruled that due to the ongoing moratorium under Section 14(1) read with Section 14(4) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the present income tax appeals against the assessee are non-maintainable and cannot be continued. All appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to either party to seek revival if the moratorium ceases in the future.