ITAT Allahabad Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all relevant evidence to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains on sale of shares.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits was unsustainable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the additions. The order was not in compliance with Section 250(6) as it lacked independent application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the unpaid service tax and had not debited it to the Profit & Loss Account, the disallowance under Section 43B was not warranted. The Tribunal also partly allowed the appeal regarding travelling expenses.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) to determine the fair market value. The disallowance of brokerage was also questioned.

The Tribunal found that the stamp papers for both deeds were issued on the same day and that the PAN was issued based on the May 13, 2013 deed. Therefore, the disallowance was considered flawed.

The Tribunal held that a statement made during a survey under Section 133A, without rejection of the assessee's subsequent explanation and without physical verification, cannot be the sole basis for addition. The assessee's explanation of estimation and inclusion of impure silver was considered plausible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company Vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, violating natural justice. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the circumstances.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without application of mind and without providing reasons. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was bad for non-application of mind as it lacked reasoning and failed to discuss the relevant facts and law. The order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in considering the partnership firm's bank accounts as belonging to the assessee, leading to an erroneous addition. The CIT(A) also failed to consider this crucial fact. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh assessment.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by law. The CIT(A) did not discuss facts or law, leading to an unacceptable ex-parte order.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating all issues on merits as required by Section 250(6). While the assessee was also at fault for non-participation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.