Five Latest Judgements Of The ITAT On Important Controversies

ITO vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

S. 275(1)(a): For penalty proceedings initiated on issues unrelated to assessment of income (such as for s. 269SS/ 269T & TDS defaults), time limit runs from date of initiation of penalty proceedings and not from date of CIT(A)'s order

Since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings

 

ITO vs. Jasjit Singh (ITAT Delhi)

S. 253: In a cross-objection, a new legal issue can be raised for the first time before the ITAT

There is no difference between an appeal and a cross-objection. In a cross-objection, a legal issue which has not been raised before the lower authorities can be raised. The C.O. need not be confined to the points taken by the opposite party in the main appeal

 

ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 68: Despite documentary evidence and broker’s confirmation, genuineness of penny stock transactions has to be determined on the basis of ‘preponderance of human probabilities’. If assessee is unable to explain ‘intriguing’ facts and circumstances, genuineness of transaction cannot be accepted

Firstly, documentary evidences, in the face of unusual events, as prevailing in the instant case, and without any corroborative or circumstantial evidence/s, cannot be regarded as conclusive. Two, the preponderance of probabilities only denotes the simultaneous existence of several ‘facts’, each probable in itself, albeit low, so as to cast a serious doubt on the truth of the reported ‘facts’, which together make up for a bizarre statement, leading to the inference of collusiveness or a device set up to conceal the truth, i.e., in the absence of credible and independent evidences

 

Rita Stephen Pinto vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 68: Only credits received during the year can be assessed as unexplained cash credits. Credits of earlier years, even if unexplained, cannot be assessed

Though the assessee could not furnish the confirmation of the loan and other evidences but such a loan could not have been added in the A.Y. 2005-06 as the same was taken in the earlier years and is being carried forward. In this year it is appearing balance of the current year. Thus, legally such an addition could not sustained in this year

 

ITO vs. Dipti Nikhil Modi (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 2(22)(e)/ 271(1)(c): S. 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision and has to be strictly construed. Assessee can discharge onus by pointing to 'preponderance of probability' and If explanation is not found to be false then, even if amounts are assessed as 'deemed dividend', penalty cannot be levied

The degree of proof necessary under the Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) can be discharged by the assessee by pointing out the factors and the material in his favour, because explanation merely raises a rebuttal presumption to which assessee can always discharge his onus by pointing out the factors relating to preponderance of probability