ITAT Agra Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT circulars. The exception for challenging constitutional validity was not applicable in this case, as the issue was about the denial of exemption due to non-filing of an audit report.

The assessee's counsel prayed to withdraw the appeal before the ITAT. The Department's Sr. DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice. The appellate order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside for non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, as it was passed ex-parte without a reasoned decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given a very short notice by the NFAC and his appeal was dismissed without a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal considered the application and the submissions.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not made a fair and reasonable assessment of the assessee's claim of opening cash balance. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate a specific legal ground raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was unsustainable as it violated Section 250(6) by not passing a reasoned order on merits. Due to additional evidence and contentions raised, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the withdrawal application. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained the necessary certificate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal.

The assessee's counsel filed an application to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted the necessary certificate. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, stating that the assessee has opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Department has no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme 2024 to settle the dispute. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had applied for withdrawal of the appeal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards unverifiable expenses, following a previous year's order. The issue of interest income from JSPL was remanded to the AO for fresh determination based on commercial expediency.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below passed orders based on mistaken facts and that the case required fresh investigation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a denovo assessment.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal with a caveat that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, they can re-approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted liberty to re-approach as per law and noted the DR had no objection.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing opportunities to both parties. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing opportunities to both parties. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing opportunities to both parties. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) orders were unsustainable. The AO made additions based on a comparison with the preceding year without proper inquiry, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without investigating the proper service of the intimation and the reasons for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if reassessment proceedings are initiated based on specific reasons, but no additions are made on those grounds, then additions made on other issues cannot be sustained. The reassessment order was quashed on this legal ground.

The Assessing Officer applied a profit rate of 8% to the cash deposits and added Rs. 44,76,376/- to the assessee's income. A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was levied under section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty order without first deciding the appeal against the quantum assessment, which was still pending.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not properly considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and failing to conduct necessary inquiries or obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The appellate order was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was cryptic and non-speaking, violating Section 250(6) by dismissing the appeal solely on non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was unsustainable as it was passed ex parte in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6). The Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay in filing the appeal.