ITAT Allahabad Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC resulted in double taxation of income already declared and also taxed exempt income. The CIT(A) confirmed the adjustment mechanically without considering the facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's sworn statement of non-receipt and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's comparable sale deeds and did not refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as required under Section 50C(2). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to provide independent reasoning and did not decide the issues on merit as required by Section 250(6). Both parties agreed to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that passing the order prior to the hearing date, despite an adjournment application, violated the principles of natural justice. The assessee was not given an opportunity to pursue the adjournment or argue the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based on conjectures and surmises without proper appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses like the absence of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) before making additions.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based on conjectures and surmises without proper appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses like the absence of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) before making additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the closing cash balance for the previous year was nil was unrebutted, meaning the opening balance claimed by the assessee could not be accepted. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,70,000 as unexplained cash was confirmed.