ITAT Agra Judgments — January 2025

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 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 Tribunal condoned the delay of 394 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the delay, primarily the non-receipt of notices and the appellate order due to address change. The Tribunal observed that both the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without proper adjudication on merits, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.

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

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 observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits. The appellate order of CIT(A) was in violation of Section 250(6) and liable to be set aside. The matter is restored to the AO for de novo assessment with directions for proper opportunity to the assessee.

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 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 After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the explanation for job work and rent income but disbelieved the opening cash balance of Rs. 11,85,478/- on the grounds that it was not declared in the ITR for AY 2016-17 and was not supported by proper evidence, invoking Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not make a fair, reasonable, and honest assessment and that a legal ground regarding the invocation of Section 69A was not adjudicated.

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 Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of books of accounts and upheld an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- in light of similar circumstances in a prior assessment year. However, the addition of Rs. 73,972/- as interest income was remanded back to the AO for further verification regarding its nature (business exigency vs. surplus fund).

The Tribunal noted that there were disputed facts regarding the source and nature of the cash deposits. The lower authorities passed orders based on mistaken facts, necessitating fresh investigation.

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, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a proper adjudication on merits, as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The ex-parte orders were found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The CIT(A) has powers co-terminus with the AO and must pass a reasoned order. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appellate order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient and reasonable cause due to the assessee's change of address and lack of proper communication from the erstwhile advocate. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without investigating the service of the intimation under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to conduct an inquiry into the manner of service of the intimation as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. If the delay is condoned, the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on grounds other than those for which the assessment was reopened under Section 147, especially when no additions were made on the original grounds. Relying on various judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

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 dismissing the appeal without admitting and properly verifying the additional evidences, claims, and contentions of the assessee. The CIT(A) should have conducted an inquiry or directed the AO to do so.

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.

The appellate order of the CIT(Appeals) was cryptic and non-speaking, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) has not adjudicated the specific ground regarding the applicability of the first proviso to Section 12A(2).