ITAT Amritsar Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IB, accepting the production commencement date as 30.03.2012 based on evidence like material purchase, electricity bills, and labour register. The issue of unexplained investment in land was restored to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before it was not maintainable as it was filed in the name of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but granted liberty to the assessee's legal heir to file a fresh appeal after rectifying the CIT(A)'s order to include the proper legal heirs.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant default in the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). This failure rendered the penalty order invalid as it violated the principles of natural justice and statutory obligations.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The dismissal by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order after providing a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the benefit of opening cash in hand and cash available in business accounts regarding the amount of Rs. 9,18,900/-. The assessee was directed to cooperate and substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the documents and submissions of the assessee regarding the sources of cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the AO lacked 'reason to believe' and the sanction from the Joint CIT was mechanical, lacking application of mind. Therefore, the assessment was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for tax deducted prior to June 1, 2015, while processing under Section 200A, was without authority of law. Therefore, the demand raised was set aside.