ITAT Agra Judgments — October 2017

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly treated Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained income due to lack of supporting evidence for the advance received against land sale. However, the CIT(Appeals) failed to provide reasons for confirming the remaining addition of Rs. 3,03,000/-, rendering the order non-speaking on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily disclosed the additional income by filing a revised return before the assessment was completed, and the AO accepted the revised income (resulting in NIL assessed income), no penalty was leviable. The Tribunal distinguished the case law relied upon by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the facts for the current year were the same as in earlier years where the department accepted rental income as business income, consistency must be maintained. Therefore, rental income from the building and parking space should be treated as business income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine without going into the merits. This was based on a CBDT circular directing that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly dealt with the assessee's specific grounds regarding the strike and the inability to cross-examine. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's counsel's affidavit provided reasonable cause for non-compliance. The counsel was either unable to meet the AO due to the AO's absence or was occupied with other professional work.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the order for transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 was invalid as it was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and mistakenly centralized a firm instead of the company. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO lacked valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that subsequent rectification of PANs, filing of TDS statements, and payment of due taxes should absolve the assessee from being treated as an assessee in default. An appeal is a continuation of proceedings, and subsequent events must be considered to mould relief.