ITAT Cuttack Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken total credits in bank accounts as turnover without proper reconciliation. Given the assessee's submission of a reconciliation statement, the issue was remanded back to the AO for verification and accurate determination of turnover.

The Tribunal held that non-furnishing of Form 26A to the prescribed authority does not warrant disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia). However, the assessee is liable for interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed payment of tax.

The Tribunal held that non-furnishing of Form 26A to the prescribed authority does not warrant disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia). However, the assessee is liable for interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed payment of tax.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, despite the assessee failing to appear on multiple occasions. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done to render substantial justice and in view of the assessee's assurance to cooperate.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to verify the declaration to be produced by the assessee and pass a reasoned order. The assessee was directed to cooperate and be provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the department failed to produce evidence of sales during the claimed closure period. While acknowledging some suppressed sales, it reduced the addition based on the assessee's admitted difference and bank statements.

The CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions, finding the AO's action arbitrary. The Tribunal affirmed this, noting the original assessment accepted the stock value and the reopening lacked cogent material. The AO's enhancement based on sale price was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) to explain the stock discrepancies. To render substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for redecision of the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It held that the CIT(A) did not err in accepting the additional evidence as the expenses were part of the record. Furthermore, the appeals were below the tax limit prescribed by a CBDT circular.

The ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It held that the CIT(A) did not err in accepting the additional evidence as the expenses were part of the record. Furthermore, the appeals were below the tax limit prescribed by a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the amount in question was a reimbursement of expenses and not part of the assessee's income. Evidence from Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. confirmed the reimbursement and TDS deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the sale bills and deductions, and that the security deposits were reflected in the balance sheet as sundry debtors.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the purchase of pesticides, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the issue of whether the purchase was for fertilizer was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to decide the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing and considering CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that since the loans did not pertain to the financial year under consideration, no addition could be made. The Tribunal affirmed this deletion, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee furnished confirmations, the onus shifted to the Assessing Officer to verify them, for instance, by issuing notices under Section 133(6). Since the AO made no independent inquiry, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide a basis for the 8% profit estimation. Considering the assessee's past accepted profit rates ranging from 5.62% to 6.66%, the Tribunal reduced the estimated net profit to 6.5% to protect revenue leakage. The addition on account of interest income was deleted as books were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as there was no new tangible material and it was based on a mere change of opinion. The reassessment order was consequently cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific as it failed to strike off inappropriate words and did not clearly mention the specific charge for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty order was bad in law.

The Tribunal decided to proceed based on the original grounds of appeal after the assessee withdrew additional grounds. One ground regarding CSR expenses was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's absence, considered the submissions of the revenue. The judgment primarily discusses the delay in pronouncement of the order due to the COVID-19 lockdown, stating that the lockdown period should be excluded for calculating the 90-day limit for pronouncements. The actual merits of the additions are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT's enhanced monetary limits are applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal decided that the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, ITA No. 30/CTK/2017 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA No. 230/CTK/2019 was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day time limit for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, the orders were not barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of capital introduction by partners. For expenses, the disallowance was reduced from 20% to 10% due to the nature of business and lack of bills.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to file within the stipulated time. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not arrive at proper satisfaction that expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income and directly applied Rule 8D(2). The disallowance was set aside as the formula in Rule 8D does not override actual expenditure.

The Tribunal decided that the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, ITA No. 30/CTK/2017 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA No. 230/CTK/2019 was allowed.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's absence, considered the submissions of the revenue. The judgment primarily discusses the delay in pronouncement of the order due to the COVID-19 lockdown, stating that the lockdown period should be excluded for calculating the 90-day limit for pronouncements. The actual merits of the additions are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from a reserve fund created as per statutory guidelines to meet unforeseen losses is intrinsically connected with the business and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(ii). The reliance on the Totgars case by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect due to dissimilar facts.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer. The appeal was restored to the AO to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a proper hearing.