INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SMT KUNDA SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 288/PAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)12 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made on account of an advance received for iron ore extraction. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition primarily because the advance was subsequently refunded after the buyer terminated the agreement due to frustration of contract.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and compliance with procedural rules, and whether the advance received was taxable at that stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 246A,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr R K Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 25/02/2025

PER BENCH (6:4); This bunch of ten appeals i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →