ITAT Cuttack Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval for levying the penalty was obtained and that the assessee failed to produce evidence of maintaining and producing books of account. The assessment order indicated non-compliance and ex-parte assessment due to non-production of books.

The Tribunal held that since the cash book was not disturbed by the Assessing Officer and showed adequate opening cash balance to cover the deposit, it could not be treated as unexplained income. Furthermore, treating the deposit as unexplained income would amount to double addition as it was already considered in the income and expenditure account.

The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court decisions on whether appellate proceedings are considered pending before the Assessing Officer for Section 12A purposes. Following the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that they did not wish to press the appeal. The assessee proposed to file an application under Section 154 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made in the intimation under Section 143(1) was a debatable issue, not a mistake apparent from the record, especially since a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) had been completed. Therefore, the intimation was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the housing loan as turnover. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that once it is accepted that the assessee is not maintaining books of account, penalty under Section 271B for non-audit is not leviable. Furthermore, the assessee's turnover in preceding and succeeding years did not cross the audit limit, providing a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared a net profit of 2.09% and the Assessing Officer's comparative analysis showed net profit rates ranging from 1.01% to 2.50%. The Tribunal directed the income to be estimated at 2.5% of the turnover, considering the assessee's non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not strike off the inappropriate limb of Section 271(1)(c), making the penalty unsustainable. This decision followed the precedents set by the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the business had stopped and restoring the issue to the AO was not purposeful. Considering the disclosed NP and the closure of business, the Tribunal reduced the estimated NP to 0.75%.