ITAT Allahabad Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 132B regarding adjustment of seized cash was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Interest under Section 234A was upheld due to the late filing of the return, but the AO was directed to recompute interest under Section 234B considering adjustments for taxes paid and the date of filing the return.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not invalid due to limitation as no return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice. However, it found that the Assessing Officer erred by not referring the property valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2) when the assessee objected to the deemed consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic and unreasoned orders, accepting contentions without detailed analysis and failing to obtain the AO's comments on additional evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic and unreasoned orders, accepting contentions without detailed analysis and failing to obtain the AO's comments on additional evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate appeals on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given a brief period to produce all necessary details and evidence. Considering a similar case of the co-owner being remanded, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the issue of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction before the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal did not express any view on the merits of the jurisdictional issue or other grounds raised.