ITAT Amritsar Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal found the basis for holding the assessee in default for presumptive commission payments in certain years to be unsubstantiated. However, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes based on observations regarding the exclusion of lockdown periods for pronouncement of orders.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the cessation of liabilities and that the assessee had obtained a benefit. The Tribunal also noted that the pronouncement of the order was delayed due to the COVID-19 lockdown, which should be excluded from the time limit.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct adequate inquiries regarding a significant deposit into an individual's account that was claimed to belong to an HUF. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments against the revision lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the pandemic should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on the merits of the specific issues.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic should be excluded when computing the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. The appeal was allowed based on this interpretation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were validly initiated as the assessee offered the income only after detection by the department. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of pronouncement of order beyond 90 days due to the COVID-19 lockdown, extending the period.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) due to a wrong address being used for notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee another opportunity to present evidence supporting its charitable objects and activities. The CIT(E) was instructed to consider these submissions before passing a fresh order.

The ITAT directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case with proper documentation. The Tribunal also discussed a procedural issue regarding the delay in pronouncement of the order due to the COVID-19 lockdown.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) with supporting evidence. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already examined the issue of capital funds during the original assessment. Reopening the case based on an audit objection without new material amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible. Therefore, the reopening was invalid.

The Tribunal found the basis for holding the assessee in default for presumptive commission payments in certain years to be unsubstantiated. However, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes based on observations regarding the exclusion of lockdown periods for pronouncement of orders.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the pandemic should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. The appeal was partly allowed based on these observations.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. The appeal was allowed in terms of these observations.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the AO for further verification of additions made to the hotel building account. The AO was directed to allow telescoping from the surrendered amount if taxes were paid on the entire sum, and to grant depreciation if eligible.

The Tribunal held that the factual observations of the CIT(Exemptions) regarding the ownership and legal status of the eight properties required further deliberation. The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the properties were old, constructed by devotees, and managed by the Ashram and its successors. The assessee had provided sale deeds, gift deeds, and court decrees to support its claim of ownership and legal status. The Tribunal found itself unable to persuade itself to agree with the CIT(Exemptions)'s conclusion based on the material on record, particularly concerning the ownership and legal status of the properties. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the pronouncement of the order beyond the 90-day period, citing the COVID-19 lockdown as a force majeure event and relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court orders that extended limitation periods. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored the application for registration to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration based on the Tribunal's observations regarding the ownership and genuineness of the activities.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the pandemic should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on the merits of the specific issues.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the pandemic should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on the merits of the specific issues.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the pandemic should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on the merits of the specific issues.

The Tribunal found the basis for holding the assessee in default for presumptive commission payments in certain years to be unsubstantiated. However, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes based on observations regarding the exclusion of lockdown periods for pronouncement of orders.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case with proper evidence and documentation.