ITAT Cuttack Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. The notice failed to specify whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence (Form 26A) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut it, violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The matter was set aside for a fresh order.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the file of a different CIT(A). The new CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal found that the AO made additions due to the assessee's inability to produce documents, and while the assessee provided some documents to the CIT(A), clarification was still needed. To meet the ends of justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision after accepting the assessee's explanation and verifying documents.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to sundry creditors where confirmations were provided, and allowed deletion of part of the addition for loan creditors where identity was established. The penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash loans from relatives was also deleted due to reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that it would serve the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 requires tangible material and cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Since the reasons for reopening were already with the AO during the original assessment, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission that all taxes were paid and there was no revenue loss, remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. If no short deduction is found, the demand and interest will be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was still carrying on its business as per its memorandum of association and was therefore entitled to debit expenses in its profit and loss account. The Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission that all taxes were paid and there was no revenue loss, remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. If no short deduction is found, the demand and interest will be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO has a duty to investigate facts when circumstances warrant it, and failure to do so makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was therefore justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was still carrying on its business as per its memorandum of association and was therefore entitled to debit expenses in its profit and loss account. The Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that since there was no contract between the assessee and the labour sardars, they were facilitators of payment and not contractors. Therefore, Section 194C was not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not comply with the mandatory requirement of issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C before passing the final assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order and the first appellate order were annulled.

The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's decision to estimate net profit at 8% on disclosed contract receipts, allowing salary and interest to partners. However, for undisclosed contract receipts, it held that only the embedded profit, not the entire amount, should be taxed, and directed the AO to estimate net profit at 16% of these receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of Rs. 2.5 lakhs received from his brother and Rs. 3.5 lakhs received by his wife. No legitimate documentary evidence was provided for other additions. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014, restricting disallowance to 30%, is curative and retrospective. Therefore, the 100% disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be restricted to 30%.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,09,335/- related to coolie and cartage outward expenses. It also allowed a claim of Rs. 60,955/- for partner's travelling expenses. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of 10% on other coolie and cartage outward expenses.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the sub-contractor had filed its return and its income was accepted by the AO in a subsequent assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence and the AO had not proven the bills to be bogus.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the evidence submitted, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment (denovo) after allowing the assessee to file all documentary evidence.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and the revenue. Regarding transportation charges, it upheld 5% of the total expenses as a disallowance. For director's remuneration, it allowed relief by considering the average ratio of remuneration paid in previous years.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and the revenue. Regarding transportation charges, it upheld 5% of the total expenses as a disallowance. For director's remuneration, it allowed relief by considering the average ratio of remuneration paid in previous years.

The Tribunal allowed the addition of Rs. 60,000 on account of donations, finding it within the prescribed limit for anonymous donations under Section 115BBC. For the Rs. 14,46,915 addition, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of documents. The Tribunal allowed the claim for depreciation, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in treating the cash deposit as unexplained investment. The Tribunal considered the joint ownership, the valuation report of a similar plot, and the fact that both parties were professionals unlikely to generate such unaccounted income.

The Tribunal held that the matter required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to examine and verify the submitted certificates and declarations and adjudicate the issue afresh.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Keshav Power Ltd. and the CBDT circular, held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The Revenue was granted liberty to point out any case wrongly included.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of prior withdrawals to explain the deposits in question. However, the addition for unexplained investment in a flat was upheld due to lack of credible evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the evidence submitted, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment (denovo) after allowing the assessee to file all documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in passing a summary and non-speaking order, violating statutory obligations. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a de novo decision.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not conducted any exercise to determine the peak credit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to determine the peak credit claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessments were made ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the remand report was not adequately considered. The Revenue did not object to restoring the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not conducted any exercise to determine the peak credit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to determine the peak credit claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted an exercise to determine the peak credit of cash deposits, which was a crucial aspect of the assessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this determination.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted an exercise to determine the peak credit of cash deposits, which was a crucial aspect of the assessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this determination.

The Tribunal found that the assessments were made ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the remand report was not adequately considered. The Revenue did not object to restoring the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessments were made ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the remand report was not adequately considered. The Revenue did not object to restoring the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessments were made ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the remand report was not adequately considered. The Revenue did not object to restoring the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to reframe the assessments after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider all required evidence.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted an exercise to determine the peak credit of cash deposits, which was a crucial aspect of the assessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this determination.

For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that revised returns were accepted and assessed income matched the revised income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as the lender's creditworthiness was not substantiated. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty, setting aside the order due to a defective notice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns. The penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld as justified.

For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that revised returns were accepted and assessed income matched the revised income.

For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that revised returns were accepted and assessed income matched the revised income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.