ITAT Cuttack Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all relevant documentary evidence, including names, addresses, and PAN of creditors. The lower authorities failed to discharge their onus of verification, making their additions unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all relevant documentary evidence, including names, addresses, and PAN of creditors. The lower authorities failed to discharge their onus of verification, making their additions unjustified.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee based on the principle of natural justice. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for past conduct.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO had already examined the bank transactions during the original assessment. This constituted a 'change of opinion' without any new tangible material, making the reassessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 14,61,470/- in the relevant assessment year, which was significantly higher than the investment amount. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had been filing income tax returns regularly since 1997-98.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record his satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the assessment order. Following the AP High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record his satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars before initiating penalty proceedings. This was considered a jurisdictional defect.

The ITAT, in the interest of substantial justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions on issues not forming the basis of the original reassessment notice if the primary issue for reassessment is not sustained. The AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on a different issue not mentioned in the reasons recorded for reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO, having accepted that no capital gains escaped assessment, could not independently make additions on other issues not forming the basis of the reassessment notice. The AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions on the source of funds for property purchase.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.