ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's later decision in Aarham Softronics clarified that substantial expansion can lead to a new initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was not legally sustainable as the liabilities did not represent expenses or allowances claimed by the assessee, and there was no evidence of cessation in the impugned year. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio because it was passed before the mandatory prior approval from the Additional CIT was obtained. The Tribunal noted that the approval date was after the penalty order date and the relevant columns were filled manually.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio because it was passed before the mandatory prior approval from the Additional CIT was obtained. The Tribunal noted that the approval date was after the penalty order date and the relevant columns were filled manually.

The Tribunal noted that identical additions for earlier years had been deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Following that precedent, the Tribunal decided to apply the same findings to the current appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio because it was passed before the mandatory prior approval from the Additional CIT was obtained. The Tribunal noted that the approval date was after the penalty order date and the relevant columns were filled manually.

The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence (affidavits from sellers) as crucial for the case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of a bonafide mistake. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly appreciated the evidence and the services rendered by the director. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was condemned unheard. A reasonable cause for non-appearance was established by the counsel's affidavit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged the onus to explain the deposits. The tax authorities had made additions based on suspicion, ignoring the available evidence, including the affidavit of the deceased's daughter.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was condemned unheard. There was a reasonable cause for the non-appearance of the counsel.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was condemned unheard. A reasonable cause for non-appearance was established by the counsel's affidavit.

The Tribunal held that the defaults were inadvertent and not intentional, and that the assessee had a reasonable cause due to the tax consultant's workload and the assessee's absence. Therefore, the penalties were not leviable.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was condemned unheard. A reasonable cause for non-appearance was established by the counsel's affidavit.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was condemned unheard. A reasonable cause for non-appearance was established by the counsel's affidavit.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was condemned unheard. A reasonable cause for non-appearance was established by the counsel's affidavit.

The Tribunal held that the reopening beyond 4 years was not justified as the AO had all the necessary information during the original assessment. The Tribunal also ruled that the law does not require the exact sale proceeds to be used for the new asset, as long as substantial investment is made within the stipulated time.

The tribunal condoned the delay, citing the peculiar circumstances and the need for substantial justice. The ex-parte orders were set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.