ITAT Allahabad Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the jewellery was explained based on CBDT instructions regarding married women's holdings. For the cash, it was found that a portion was from sari sales and should not have been added. For undisclosed stock, the addition was reduced as it was based on estimation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made compliance, albeit belatedly, by filing written submissions before the assessment order was framed. The delay was considered a bonafide reason due to the transition to digital assessment proceedings, making Section 273B applicable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, jumbling both 'concealed particulars' and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' without proper conjunctions or striking out inapplicable portions. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, jumbling both 'concealed particulars' and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' without proper conjunctions or striking out inapplicable portions. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, jumbling both 'concealed particulars' and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' without proper conjunctions or striking out inapplicable portions. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without complying with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires proper adjudication and hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide on merits. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the assessee had belatedly complied before the assessment order was finalized.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. This was to verify the assessee's claim that a sale of a truck for Rs. 13,82,000/- should not be included in business receipts, which would bring the turnover below the threshold for audit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that the grounds of appeal were not adjudicated in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide on merits. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the assessee had belatedly complied before the assessment order was finalized.