ITAT Allahabad Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, with a tax effect below the revised limit, was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that a show-cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be specific regarding whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A non-specific notice is void ab initio, rendering the consequent penalty illegal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to decide the objections by a separate speaking order before passing the assessment order, as mandated by judicial precedents, renders the assessment order null and void.

The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A cannot be refused if the trust is in the process of establishing its charitable institution, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The genuineness of the objects, not yet commenced activities, should be tested.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT had not properly examined the objects of the trust to determine if they were charitable. The CIT also failed to point out any specific non-charitable activity. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal held that while freight payments are subject to TDS, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable without a contractual agreement. If transporters have disclosed and paid tax on the income, the assessee should not be treated as in default.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing a proper opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A) had rejected an adjournment request and decided the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal rejected Ground No. 2 as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 15, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that set off of independent additions against unexplained investment/expenditure is not permissible under the law.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was done to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing and in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that if the tax was genuinely paid, the assessee should not be treated as being in default. The matter was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the tax payment and to decide the issue afresh.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.