ITAT Cuttack Judgments — May 2017

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not sustainable as the higher turnover was due to an inadvertent error, proven by a letter from the Sales Tax Officer. However, the disallowance of expenses was upheld, though reduced by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal rejected the condonation petition as the delay for the initial period was not explained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and demand notice were served beyond the statutory limitation period. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was time-barred and therefore non-est in law.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it legally important and not considered by lower authorities. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue on a different basis (branch population) than the Assessing Officer, without this aspect being discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided an exhaustive explanation and there was a reasonable cause for the disclosure. It was found that the department failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.