ITAT Cuttack Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the provision for contingent liability, as it was an unascertained liability not allowable. The revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection, especially when the original assessment had considered the same facts, is not sustainable. The assessee had also substantiated grounds before appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any new tangible material. The reassessment order was consequently cancelled.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking reasons, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and denied the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed written submissions and evidence before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions after considering the Assessing Officer's findings and the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's contention that documentary evidence was presented to the CIT(A) to support the agricultural income claim. The CIT(A) had made observations regarding this income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, finding that the assessee's inability to pay was due to genuine financial difficulties. The Tribunal noted that the disputed tax had been deposited and the company's financial position had improved.

The Tribunal held that the AO is mandated to dispose of objections to a Section 148 notice by a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment. Failing to do so renders the reassessment order invalid and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO is mandated to dispose of objections to a Section 148 notice by a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment. Failing to do so renders the reassessment order invalid and void ab initio.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law and supported by Supreme Court judgments, renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law and supported by Supreme Court judgments, renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law and supported by Supreme Court judgments, renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law and supported by Supreme Court judgments, renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to explicitly specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law and supported by Supreme Court judgments, renders the penalty order unsustainable.