ITAT Cuttack Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek recall if the grievance is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that an Additional Commissioner is empowered to issue directions under Section 144A, as per the definition in Section 2(28C). Consequently, the earlier order of the Tribunal recalling its previous order was upheld, and the appeal was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the nature of payments to Shri Khagesh Patel was unclear and required further investigation by the AO. It also directed the AO to consider additional evidence regarding VAT returns and purchase discrepancies.

The Tribunal restored the provident fund issue to the AO for verification of deduction by the principal employer. For the purchase issue, the Tribunal held that the Sales Tax Department's certificate confirming the purchase figures, along with other supporting documents, discharged the assessee's onus, and thus no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct proper inquiries on the issues of understated receipts and unrecorded service income rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisionary action under Section 263 was justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's turnover exceeded the limit for Section 44AD, making its provisions inapplicable. The AO's assessment order did not clearly specify the depreciation allowed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper calculation of depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the liability towards sundry creditors for labour. Ample opportunities were given by the lower authorities, but the assessee could not furnish the required details.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's precedents on substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was then restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts but found the 2% net profit estimation excessive compared to previous years. It directed the AO to estimate net profit at 1%. The addition for activation charges was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to justify the cash payments under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD. The contradictory submissions and lack of proper documentation meant the reliance on case laws was not applicable.