ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit for departmental appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the new monetary threshold should not have been filed.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit for departmental appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the new monetary threshold should not have been filed.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in taxing Rs. 1 crore separately under Section 115BBE as the income was from real estate transactions and the source was explained. The CIT(A) also lacked the power to remand the issue of Rs. 2.64 crores back to the AO for adjudication under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed late by two days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored crucial evidence regarding the assessee's agricultural land ownership and cultivation. Given the time lag and potential unavailability of bank records, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate upon the additional legal grounds. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case and then decide the issues.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection.

The assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without establishing proper service of hearing notices on the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal decided to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including member affidavits and financial records. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering this new evidence.

As the assessee has settled the tax dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and the necessary forms have been issued, both appeals are to be dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee. This was based on the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020'.

As the assessee has settled the tax dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and the necessary forms have been issued, both appeals are to be dismissed.