|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 324 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 104
Dismissa of appeal solely on the ground of a two-day delay in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, order under appeal was passed on 20.12.2023 which was communicated to the petitioner through e-mail on 22.12.2023. In terms of Section 169 of 2017 Act, one of the mode of communication is by e-mail. From the date of communication, appeal is filed on 90th day. Section 107 of KGST Act, 2017 provides three months time to file appeal from the date of order or from the date of communication.
Even otherwise, the petitioner had filed rectification application and along with rectification application, petitioner had also filed application along with affidavit, praying to condone the delay, if any in preferring the appeal. If such rectification application along with application for condonation of delay is filed, second respondent ought to have exercised its power under Section 107 (2) of 2017 Act, judiciously since the appeal was presented within the condonable period. The respondent No. 2 failed to apply its mind judiciously and failed to take a decision in terms of Section 107 (2) of 2017 Act.
Conclusion - The dismissal of the appeal based on a minor delay was unjustified and it is directed that the second respondent shall hear the appeal on its merits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 103
Challenge to order made by the First Appellate Authority - non-constitution of Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The submission made on behalf of petitioner is accepted regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed. The deposit be made accordingly.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 102
Failure on the part of the respondents to provide a copy of the various documents as well as electronic articles which had been seized from the petitioner and are detailed in the panchnama which has been placed on the record - HELD THAT:- It is informed that some of the documents which had been seized were provided to the petitioner only as late as 20 January 2025 and that the personal hearing itself has been concluded yesterday. In view of the above, it is alleged that the petitioner was unable to furnish an effective response to the allegations leveled.
It is inclined to direct the respondents to provide copies of all material which had been seized and is noticed in the panchnama, in light of the closure of proceedings by the respondents no purpose would be served today by issuance of such a direction.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 101
Challenge to show notice issued under the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts - no cause of action to issue a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- There is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned Government Pleader that all contentions taken by the petitioner before this Court, in challenge to Ext.P4 show cause notice, are matters that can be taken up before the Adjudicating Authority. The contention of the petitioner that the Audit Report was finalized without considering the contentions taken by the petitioner is also a matter that can be raised before the Adjudicating Authority and I have no reason to believe that if such contention is taken, the Adjudicating Authority will not consider such objections and will proceed to finalize the demand solely on the basis of the findings in the Audit Report. Further, the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts is also a matter that can be considered by the Adjudicating Authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 100
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice beyond the mandatory period of four years - eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the reasons for the reopening for the petitioner’s case, reveals that the assessing officer has not made out any case to the effect that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The impugned order does not in any manner attribute such reasoning stipulated under proviso to Section 147 to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. In fact, the reasons for reopening of the assessment are itself based on the records provided, by the petitioner like the books of account, documents, loan confirmation details from various parties which were furnished by the petitioner during the course of the assessment proceedings.
The fact of complete disclosure by the petitioner of all details necessary for assessment were duly disclosed by the petitioner in its letter dated 19 December 2016 (supra) along with all details, annexures in specific response to the final show cause notice dated 13 December 2016 issued by the respondents for the A.Y. 2014-15. It is such material which formed the basis of reopening of the assessment as is evident from the impugned assessment order dated 29 March 2022. There appears to be no fresh tangible material before the respondents to form its own/independent opinion in regard to reopening of the petitioner assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15, under Section 147 of the IT Act.
Denial of natural justice - We may observe that the mandatory procedure postulated u/s 144B is also not followed by the respondents. This is in as much as the petitioner’s objection dated 18 February 2022 to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment by the respondent dated 9 December 2021 were neither considered, dealt with, much less disposed of by the respondents. Further the reply of the petitioner to the draft assessment order dated 24 March 2022 was filed by the petitioner on 28 March 2022, mainly pointing out that the reassessment proceedings were contrary to the provisions of section 147 read with the decision of GKN Driveshaft [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] The respondent failed to even consider these vital aspects which embrace the requirement of reasonable opportunity to be given to the petitioner, rushed to pass the impugned assessment order on 29 March 2022 i.e., just within a day after receiving a reply dated 28 March 2022 from the petitioner to the draft assessment order. No opportunity of being heard/hearing was given to the petitioner despite the variations prejudicial to the petitioner were unilaterally proposed by the respondents, nor were the objections raised by the petitioner separately disposed of by the respondents.
Thus, the impugned assessment order runs contrary to the intrinsic principles of natural justice inbuilt and ingrained under Section 144B of the IT Act rendering the impugned order patently illegal.
Thus, there is no fresh tangible material on the basis of which the assessing officer decided to reopen the petitioner’s assessment for the impugned A.Y. 2014-15 - The impugned assessment order fails to consider that the assessment cannot be reopened beyond a period of four years from the relevant assessment year A.Y. 2014-15 in terms of the first proviso to section 147. Such action would stare in non compliance of jurisdictional requirements, and is therefore, non-est in law. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 99
Validity of reassessment proceedings - although the petitioner was deriving profits from the supply of equipment and spares to Indian companies and entities, it had failed to acknowledge the said income asserting that it had no Permanent Establishment [PE] in India - HELD THAT:- Respondents have woefully failed to establish, that the formation of opinion was based on any independent inquiry or material that the AO may have collated for the purposes of forming an opinion as to whether income in AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 had escaped assessment. As is ex facie evident from a reading of the reasons which stood assigned for invoking Section 148, the solitary basis was the survey conducted on 06-07 June 2019.
Accordingly, and for all the reasons assigned by us in our judgment rendered on Grid Solutions OY [2025 (1) TMI 911 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find ourselves unable to sustain the impugned action. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 98
Priority of Secured Creditor's Rights over Tax Dues - sequence of events - auction the two helicopters on account of it being classified as NPA and also stating that its charge over the assets had priority over the income tax dues - petitioner submits that the continued existence of the prohibitory order has prevented the DGCA, M/s Yathi Air Services and SAR Aviation Services from releasing the helicopters to the petitioner - petitioner submits that that the hypothecation of the helicopters by respondent no. 3 and the default by M/s Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd. were established and well-documented before the issuance of the prohibitory order
HELD THAT:- This Court finds no merit in the objections raised by respondent no. 2. It is a well-settled principle of law that, unless specifically stipulated by statute, the dues of a secured creditor take precedence over government debts. In this regard, the respondent no. 3, as a secured creditor, had priority over the revenue’s claims and, accordingly, was entitled to exercise its rights over the secured assets and subsequently sell the concerned helicopters.
In the present case, the hypothecation agreement was executed well before the issuance of the prohibitory order. This establishes the legal foundation for the respondent no. 3’s rights over the helicopters, which predate any action taken by the Income Tax Authorities.
Objection raised by the Income Tax Department regarding inadequate prior notice of the auction is without merit. It is well-documented that, on 06.09.2023, the respondent no. 3 formally communicated its intention to auction the helicopters to the Income Tax Department. However, despite receiving this communication, respondent no. 2 failed to respond.
Section 222(1)(a) explicitly states “attachment and sale,” signifying a sequential process where the property, once attached, must subsequently be sold to recover the arrears. Despite this, respondent no. 2 failed to take any action beyond the issuance of the prohibitory order.
This Court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention that the absence of any objection or legal challenge from the tax authorities regarding the auction conducted by respondent no. 3, despite their prior knowledge of it, signifies their acquiescence to the sale. In this regard, reliance has been rightly placed on the judgments of N Murugesan [2021 (10) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT] and State Bank of India v. M J James [2021 (11) TMI 1078 - SUPREME COURT]
Respondent no. 2 was clearly informed about respondent no. 3’s intention to auction the petitioner’s two helicopters through a communication dated 06.09.2023. However, respondent no. 2 did not raise any objection at that time.
It was only after duly informing respondent no. 2 the intention of the respondent no. 3, a notice regarding the auction of the two helicopters was published in the Financial Express and Jansatta newspapers on 20.09.2023.Further, on 22.09.2023, respondent no. 3 issued a corrigendum to furnish additional information to bidders regarding applicable hangar charges on the helicopters and the existence of a prohibitory order.
Even after the successful auction and the subsequent sale of the two helicopters, respondent no. 2 was informed about the same. Despite being duly informed at every step, respondent No. 2 failed to raise any objection/s to the auction. In any event, in view of the legal position that the dues of Respondent no. 3/ secured creditor takes precedence over the dues of respondent no. 2, the attachment order issued by respondent no. 2 cannot be construed to be an impediment to the auction sale in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 97
Deduction u/s 195 - Payments made for the reimbursement of salaries to seconded employees - Assessee, an Indian Company is a subsidiary of a foreign entity in Singapore, said foreign entity had entered into Inter Company Master Service Agreement with Holding Company Walmart Inc, Delaware, which is a USA entity.
US entity provides services to various affiliates across the globe pursuant to Master Service Agreement and accordingly the Walmart seconded its employees to the Assessee Company. For the seconded service, the Assessee – company having deducted the TDS remitted the salary amount to the US entity by way of reimbursement.
HELD THAT:- Contention of the Revenue that the Assessee had failed to place all the material to demonstrate the kind of services rendered by the seconded employees were not made available and that they were not requisitioned for the purpose of training the regular employees of the Assessee, is too farfetched to gain acceptance. So is the submission that in the course of training, there would be transmission of technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how and that would satisfy the requirement of “make available”. If that idea was lurking in the mind of the Assessing Officer, he could have called for such information from the sources that be.
We have to keep in mind that arrangements of the kind do obtain in a shrunk globe and that all indicia of employer-employee relationship, which ordinarily obtain in the native Service/Industrial Jurisprudence cannot be expected in the realm of international business of the kind.
If Triple Test namely (i) Direct Control, (ii) Supervision & (iii) Direction, is satisfied vide ABBEY BUSINESS [2020 (12) TMI 570 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] a strong case is made out as to the existence of employer employee relationship, the absence of a few indicia notwithstanding. An argument to the contrary would offend the stark truths of business world. Added, the assertion of the Assessee-Company that the amount is reimbursed to the Walmart after deducting the TDS from the salaries earned by the seconded employees in India, is not disputed by the Revenue. We hasten to clarify that in saying this, we are not invoking the doctrine of estoppel. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 96
Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash deposit made by the petitioner in any of the bank accounts - HELD THAT:- As reasons recorded in both the notices issued u/s 148A (a) and Section 148A (b) of the Act that there is no cash deposit made by the petitioner in any of the bank accounts and there is no information of any escaped income with AO so as to initiate the reopening proceedings.
Explanation given by the petitioner in reply to the notice u/s 148A (a) of the Act and the documents annexed therewith, prima facie, shows that there is no income earned by the petitioner but there is excess of expenditure over income for the year under consideration and as such the petitioner was not liable to file the return of income if there is no taxable income or exemption claimed by the petitioner.
Petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 95
Rejecting the application seeking permission for assessment of real and actual income after condoning the delay u/s 119 - ‘genuine hardship’ - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. [2024 (5) TMI 502 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had allowed the writ petition and had granted the relief similar to the relief sought for in the present batch of writ petitions.
Reading of the facts in the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, what is clearly reflected is that the officers of the Income Tax Department were in agreement with the petitioners to their request for condoning the delay and also going in for reassessment so as to compute the correct taxable income.
In view of the fact that this Bench finding the action on the part of CBDT in rejecting the petition under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be bad in law in the given factual matrix of the case, the two questions of law framed as is enunciated stands answered accordingly:-
a) So far as the question whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the application u/s 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also was not sustainable factually.
b) So far as the relief which has been sought for whether can be granted invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is answered in the affirmative in the view of the findings given by this Bench in the preceding paragraphs based on the judicial precedents.
This Court is conscious of the fact that post re-assessment; there is a likelihood of inflated values emerging which could possibly show surplus tax having been paid potentially burdening the Revenue. However, the petitioner Company has voluntarily agreed not to make any claim for refund. The petitioner Company has filed a memo in this regard dated 15.02.2024 undertaking to waive any such surplus tax having been paid which may arise after assessment. This proactive step by the petitioner Company provides additional compelling ground for allowing this petition, particularly in light of there being no financial implication falling on the Revenue. This gesture on the part of the petitioner to mitigate potential financial implications also shows their commitment only with an intention of getting a fair and genuine assessment so far as the income and the expenditure of the petitioner Company for the relevant period is redone by way of reassessment.
This Court finds that the petitioner-Company through its Assistant Chief Corporate Counsel (Legal) and Authorized Signatory has unequivocally agreed to waive its rights to claim any refund that may arise after adjusting any tax liability arising from the de novo assessments for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09. This waiver is comprehensive and applies to any residual refunds that may arise after setting off aggregate demands across the relevant Assessment Years u/s 245. This Court finds that this decision of the Assistant Chief Corporate Counsel (Legal) has been duly authorized by the Managing Director of the petitioner Company supported by a valid Power of Attorney dated 22.11.2013. This waiver effectively ensures that there will be no additional financial burden on the Revenue following the completion of the reassessment process.
-
2025 (3) TMI 94
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe -information made available on the insight portal relied upon - Petitioner has entered into transactions with ASE capital Markets Ltd - HELD THAT:- We find that at no point of time, was there any failure on the part of the petitioner:
“(i) to make a return u/s. 139 or in response to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148;
(ii) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that Assessment Year”
It cannot be held that the department was justified in reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2014-15, which, we may add, has been done mechanically without application of mind, in the absence of any tangible material.
It also appears from the reasons recorded that no verification of the material on record is made by the respondent and there is no independent opinion that any income has escaped assessment due to any failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
Moreover, from the reasons recorded it appears that the initiation of reopening proceedings are on borrowed satisfaction as no independent opinion is formed and on bare perusal of the reasons recorded, it emerges that the AO, considering the information received from the insight portal, has issued the impugned notice forming his reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment on the presumption that the petitioner has been involved in creating the non-genuine losses which is already reflected in the return of income which is accepted in the regular course of assessment by passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act. Besides, there is no clarity in the reasons whether the transaction value in question or the loss that resulted from such transaction, amounts to Rs. 27,61,650/-. Further, the petitioner had reported a total loss of Rs. 41,56,218/- in F&O Trade in its return. Why only a portion thereof, namely Rs. 27,61,650/- is considered to be non-genuine loss and the rest of the loss is considered to be genuine, is also baffling.
There is no basis to form reasonable belief for escapement of income except the information made available on the insight portal. The respondent-Assessing Officer has not considered the material on record to come to the conclusion that there is failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts to have reason to believe for escapement of income.
Therefore, on the basis of the information received from another agency on insight portal or from the SEBI report, there cannot be any reassessment proceedings unless the respondent, after considering such information/material received from other sources, consider the same with the material on record in the case of the petitioner assessee and thereafter, is required to form independent opinion that income has escaped assessment. Without forming such opinion, solely and mechanically relying upon the information received from the other sources, AO could not have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on such information. This view is fortified by the decision of this Court in case of Harikishan Sunderlal Virmani [2016 (12) TMI 1558 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
AO could not have assumed the jurisdiction merely and solely relying upon the information made available on the insight portal without forming any independent opinion on the basis of the material on record vis-a-vis the petitioner is concerned.
This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had disclosed in its return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 the particulars of the loss under the head of “future and options” which was subsequently accepted by the Department. Therefore, the notice for re-opening the assessment on the exact entry under the head of “future and options” is based on change of opinion. The assessee cannot be said to have failed to have fully and truly disclosed all materials facts which would warrant the re- opening after a period of four years, anyways. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 93
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1) beyond period of limitation - assessee has not discharge of initial onus of filing voluntary return u/s 139(1) of the Act, thus, he concealed his income - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the assessment was completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 28/11/2019 and as per the provisions of section 275(1) (c) the time limit for passing the penalty order would be up to 30th Sept. 2020. Due to Covid-19, the time limits for levy of penalty under any provision of the Act falling during the period of continuation of Covid-19 were extended by various Circulars and finally in terms of Notification No.113/2021/f.No.370142/35/2020-TPL-Part-1], it was extended till 31st March, 2022 which is the end date up to which the limit for completion of order imposing penalty chargeable under the Act was extended. As penalty order was passed as on 1st April, 2022, the same is beyond the time limit extended by the CBDT. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 92
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - failure of compliance to notice issued u/s. 142(1) - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the list of Dates and Events, the assessee sought for details for reasons for reopening of assessment, however the same was not provided to the assessee in spite of reminders sent by the assessee.
Assessee placed on record its rectification application filed u/s. 154 of the Act dated 06-02-2023 before the AO on the very same reopening of assessment and sanctioning obtained u/s.151 of the Act, itself is bad in law. It is not on record, any order is being passed against the rectification application.
Regarding the hearing on 10-05-2023, the assessee sought for an adjournment for 10 days. Thus it is not the case of the assessee has not replied to the notices issued by the AO and failed to comply with the notices. Therefore A.O. was not correct in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) - Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 91
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - Denial of exemption exemption u/s 10(38) - purchase of shares of some penny stock companies controlled at very nominal price and thereafter sale of the same at very high price by rigging the price of these shares - HELD THAT:- The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Affluence Commodities Pvt Ltd. [2024 (4) TMI 199 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where assessee purchased and sold KPL shares and incurred loss, since assessee had proved genuineness of transactions and moreover assessee had no control whatsoever on share prices, addition made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of losses booked in penny stocks was liable to be deleted.
Similarly in the case of PCIT vs. Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel [2023 (3) TMI 926 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence that assessee had paid cash in return of receipt through cheque, therefore the Tribunal rightly deleted addition holding that transactions were genuine.
We hereby hold the addition made by AO is not legally correct in making addition on account of LTCG earned from sale of KPL shares done through stock exchange as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and the same liable to be deleted. Thus the Grounds raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 90
Disallowance of exemption u/s 54B - non submission of any details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC - HELD THAT:- We find due to non submission of any details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
It is the submission of assessee that the notices sent by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC were delivered in the e-mail of the Chartered Accountant who did not inform the assessee for which all these unfortunate events happened.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submission, if any, before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes
-
2025 (3) TMI 89
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice after four years - based on some information received from the Investigation Wing, AO framed an opinion that the assessee has received accommodation entry - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee has disclosed all the material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO after considering all the material has framed an opinion. There was nothing more to disclose and a person cannot be said to have omitted or failed to disclose something when, of such thing, he had no knowledge.
Not only material facts were disclosed by the assessee but also they were fully scrutinized by the AO in the original assessment proceedings and figure of income as well as the deductions were worked out by the AO.
The sale was duly disclosed in the Profit & Loss account which was available with the AO while framing the assessment. Now based on some information received from Investigation wing AO has tried to reopen the assessment without in any manner verifying the said information with the material available on record. This is clearly an effort of the AO to review the completed proceedings.
Reopening in the instant case is not by proper application of mind and the reasons recorded by the AO are vague and not supported by independent verification done from the material already available on record. Further assessee has been able to rebut the allegation made in the reasons recorded of receiving the accommodation entry which remained uncontroverted. Thus the reassessment proceedings as initiated vide notice issued u/s 148 are hereby quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 88
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - granting invalid approval u/s 151- Addition of unexplained cash loans and interest received - HELD THAT:- There is non-application of mind on the facts and material coming on record. Apart from many errors one particular fact that the entire premise of which reopening has been done is that amount which has been alleged to have been paid by the assessee to Mr Nilesh Bharani / Evergreen Enterprises did not even pertain to A.Y. 2011-12.
On perusal of the said seized documents placed in the paper book, it is seen that the said amount falls in the period relevant to preceding A.Y.2010-11 because the date of alleged transaction was 20/01/2010 and this has also been mentioned in assessment order and also is relevant from the documents placed.
This addition itself could not have been made in A.Y.2011-12. This itself shows that there is no application of mind.
Invalid approval u/s.151 - We are also in agreement that the contention raised by the ld. Counsel that even the ld. PCIT while granting the approval u/s.151 has not seen these facts and particularly if the amount has been alleged to have been received or given to the firm Evergreen Enterprises in the impugned assessment years when the firm Evergreen Enterprises did not even exist at that time and how ld. AO could send reopening proposals in the assessment folders of a non-existing assessee. Thus, we hold that the reasons recorded u/s.147 is based on incorrect assumption of facts and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated vide notice u/s.148 is void ab initio and is hereby quashed.
For A.Y.2012-13 to 2018-19, it has been pointed out that the entire basis for the addition made by the ld. AO is documents seized during the course of search - addition of interest earned and received in cash to be taxed as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee - From the bare perusal of the seized documents it is seen that the name mentioned as ‘S.M. Joglekar‟ with and with contact number. Nowhere this name or contact number pertain to the assessee because assessee is Mahesh N Joglekar and nowhere it has been brought on record whether S.M. Joglekar is the same as Mahesh N Joglekar. Further, there is a reference of some name Ramesh Gala, which also has no connection with the assessee.
If the ld. AO is drawing some adverse inference based on these seized documents, at least he should have verified whether it actually pertains to the assessee or not? Because neither assessee’s name is Ramesh Gala nor S.M. Joglekar. Even in para 5.19 of the AO, telephone diary seized also show alphabet “J”“J/ 71/SJ” where the name of assessee is not there. Once there is no name mentioned of the assessee in the seized documents then, it cannot be said that it is an incriminating material to rope in any addition in the name of the assessee.
Since the amounts assessed in the hands of the assessee did not pertain to him at all, the additions made for the alleged amount of loan lent in cash and estimated interest earned thereon cannot be sustained and otherwise also for all the assessment years there is no other incriminating material in respect of the assessee is there or referred by the AO. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 87
Validity of assessment order passed u/s 153A w/o valid approval granted u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- As relying on Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024 (6) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and also in the case of Serajjudin & Co. [2023 (3) TMI 785 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] the approval granted in this case is without application of mind and consequently the assessment order is annulled. The ground of appeal .of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 86
Addition u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE - cash deposited in the bank account treating the same as unexplained during the demonetization period - CIT(A) deleted part addition - HELD THAT:- There is material substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee that the addition was made without pointing out any defect in the books of account of the assessee and it cannot be ignored that the CIT(A) duly accepted the contentions of the assessee along with the evidences filed by the assessee, as mentioned hereinbefore and deleted the amount to some extent which is sales made from July 2016 – September 2016, confirmed the balance sales and Ld. AR submitted in this regard it was without any basis.
It is relevant to mention here that while made addition, the Ld. AO is not rejected the book of accounts and not found any discrepancies in the stock, sales and purchases.
As decided in Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (7) TMI 494 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was held that whereas the AO did not point out any defects in the books of account, no discrepancies were found in the stocks, sales and purchases and simply the AO concluded that there are huge deposits in the bank account during demonetization period and assessee amply demonstrated with the evidences that the cash sales and the cash deposits during relevant FYs were almost same and there was only a minimal increase in cash deposits during the FY 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. The addition could not be made.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 85
Revision u/s 263 - validity of Assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:-Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] has settled the proposition of law that search assessment framed under section 153A are to be restricted to incriminating material found during the search for those years (out of the block of six years prior to the year in which search was conducted) where the assessments are unabated. In the present case, it’s a fact on record that search action took place on the case on 31.1.2018.
The impugned assessment before us is Asst. Year 2013- 14. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessment for the impugned year was unabated. The issue, with regards to which the ld.Pr.CIT has found the assessment order erroneous, with regard to the source of investment in the immovable property not having been inquired into by the AO, admittedly has not arisen from any evidences or documents found during the search.
There is no such contention or fact put-forth either by the ld.Pr.CIT or even ld. DR before us. Therefore, it is clear that applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra) this issue could not have been considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings.
We have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the ld.Pr.CIT finding the error noted by him, to be not an error at all. Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
