ITAT Amritsar Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal concerning the quantum addition of Rs. 64.02 lakhs had already been deleted by the Tribunal, as the deposits were explained as arising from the sale of agricultural lands. Since the original addition was deleted, the penalty proceedings, which are consequential, could not be sustained.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request and allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a request for withdrawal of appeals due to applying for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Department had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made requests for adjournment and the CIT(A) passed the order without further opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be remitted back to the AO for verification of the original returns and the balance sheet to ascertain the availability of cash as on 31.03.2016. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that documentary evidence in Form-2, as per rule-5 of Finance Act (No. 2) 2024, was enclosed. The Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals, noting that the respondent (DR) had no objection. Documentary evidence in Form-2 was also enclosed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and noted that the Ld. DR had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the request for withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that documentary evidence in Form-2 was enclosed and the Ld. DR had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer lacked the necessary jurisdiction to issue the notice to a non-resident assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer was aware of the assessee's NRI status but still issued the notice to a non-jurisdictional address. The Tribunal also referred to various judicial pronouncements supporting this view.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is Rs. 60,00,000/-. The tax effect in the present appeals was below this limit, and the Revenue did not controvert this fact or claim any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were considered not maintainable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, acknowledging their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee pointed out the low tax effect in the appeals. The revenue did not controvert this and admitted that the cases did not fall within the exceptions to the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were considered not maintainable.

The Tribunal accepted the request for withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees had submitted documentary evidence in Form-2, certifying their application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessees have filed applications under the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024" for settlement of tax arrears. Documentary evidence, including a certificate under section 92(1) of Finance Act (No. 2) 2024, was provided. The DR had no objection to the withdrawal requests.

The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request for withdrawal of the appeals. Documentary evidence in Form-2, being a certificate under section 92(1) of the Finance Act (No. 2) 2024, was also enclosed and the Ld. DR had no objection.

The tribunal accepted the request for withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) denying the assessee an opportunity to present its case by dismissing the appeal before considering detailed submissions violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had sustained the penalty on the addition of Rs. 18,82,009/- without giving specific findings, stating that no appeal was filed on this specific addition before him. However, the Tribunal considered the submissions that the failure to appeal was due to an inadvertent mistake by the counsel/CA. Recognizing that the assessee should not suffer due to a counsel's mistake, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the department, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Ld. DR conceded that the case did not fall within any exceptions. Consequently, the appeal was considered not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating it was not wilful and occurred due to incorrect advice and technical issues. The Tribunal noted that notices were not served properly as per Section 282 of the Income Tax Act and violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive notice, leading to ex-parte orders from both the AO and CIT(A). Upholding the principle of natural justice, it was deemed necessary to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity.

The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay due to a technical glitch and that Form 10IE was available with the CPC before the original return was processed. The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10IE by the due date under section 139(1) is directory, not mandatory, and thus allowed the benefit of Section 115BAC to the assessee.

The ITAT, in this present order, considered the updated monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, which set the limit at Rs. 60 lacs. The tax effect in this case was Rs. 55,41,880/-, which is below the revised limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10 IE is directory and not mandatory, especially when the delay was only ten days due to technical glitches on the portal. The Tribunal noted that the form was available with the CPC before processing the return, indicating the assessee's intention to opt for the new tax regime. The denial of the benefit under section 115BAC was therefore considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessing officer and CIT(A) erred in estimating household expenses without verifiable facts. Consistency in accepting lower household expenses in earlier years set a benchmark. The estimation of Rs. 40,000 per month lacked basis, and the withdrawals were deemed sufficient, especially considering separate payments for electricity and personal expenses.