ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, were violated. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for the penalty no longer existed, the appeal had become infructuous. The Revenue did not object to this.

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest was not justified as there was no agreement to charge interest and no nexus was established between interest-bearing funds and advances. The addition for bardana loss was also deleted, considering the nature of the business and wear and tear.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries, including examining witnesses and sellers, and accepted the explanation based on the sale deed. The PCIT's action was based on an audit objection and overlooked the inquiries made by the AO and the consistent treatment of co-owners' assessments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the genuineness and reasonableness of the lease payments to the trustee were based on appreciation of facts and were not controverted by the Revenue. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the genuineness and reasonableness of the lease payments to the trustee were based on appreciation of facts and were not controverted by the Revenue. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) based on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission expenses. The assessee argued that the shares were sold at market rates through the stock exchange and payments were received through banking channels, with no knowledge of the buyers.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed immunity under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had submitted the relevant Form 4. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had no grievance with the fresh assessment order. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.