ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case and directed to cooperate with the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) for readjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present their case and ensure substantial justice, considering procedural technicalities.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) for readjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present their case and ensure substantial justice, considering procedural technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 41,50,242 as undisclosed income for the relevant assessment year was incorrect, as the assessee had offered the received amounts to tax in subsequent years. Consequently, the addition and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act can be appealed directly to the CBDT or challenged via a writ petition. Therefore, the appeal before the ITAT was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 41,50,242 as undisclosed income for the relevant assessment year was incorrect, as the assessee had offered the received amounts to tax in subsequent years. Consequently, the addition and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the extension of limitation by the Supreme Court was for proceedings before courts/tribunals and not for filing returns or audit reports. The CBDT circular also did not permit filing Form 10B beyond the extended due date for the return.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 100% depreciation on shuttering materials as their cost was below Rs. 5000 and they had a short lifespan. However, since the AO found that the assessee did not maintain books of account, the income was directed to be estimated at 7% of the turnover.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as no proper enquiry was conducted by him. The Tribunal quashed the Pr.CIT's order, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that while the Pr.CIT's view was plausible, the AO's estimation of income at 8% was also a permissible view. Since the AO took a possible and not illegal view, the Pr.CIT could not invoke Section 263 merely to impress his own opinion over the AO's.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issues afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessees to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the audit report was filed within the extended time limits provided by the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's suo motu order. Therefore, the disallowance made in the intimation u/s.143(1) was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with supporting documents.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after providing another opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit documents.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce all relevant documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce all relevant documents and evidence.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the revenue did not object. Subsequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce all relevant documents and evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals on merits after considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after providing another opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit documents.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee claimed a lack of opportunity, the records showed that the CIT(A) had granted four opportunities, all of which the assessee used to seek adjournments. The CIT(A) had noted the assessee's failure to file a reply or documents controverting the facts or providing details regarding the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issue of unrecovered loans. Considering the non-compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal levied a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. Subject to the payment of this cost, the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was being restored for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after the quantum assessment is decided. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1000/- and produce the receipt before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to represent their case. A cost of Rs. 5000/- per appeal was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/-. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for the finalization of appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to represent their case properly.

The Tribunal held that if Forms 15-G & 15-H were duly filed with the CIT, the assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter for TDS non-deduction. Discrepancies in the forms, filled by recipients, cannot be held against the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but the assessee failed to submit documents. However, considering the assessee's undertaking to produce evidence if given another chance, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1000/-.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/-. The stay petition filed by the assessee was dismissed as the quantum appeal was being restored.

The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 1000 on the assessee and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for readjudication after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to payment of cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. However, the appeal itself was partly allowed by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,45,066/- should be reduced to Rs. 61,266/- as it needed to be apportioned among the three brothers. The claim for deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- for housing loan interest was allowed as it was made in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,45,066/- should be reduced to Rs. 61,266/- as it needed to be apportioned among the three brothers. The claim for deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- for housing loan interest was allowed as it was made in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay to be genuine, considering the business closure and lack of subsequent tax filings. The delay was condoned, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee one more opportunity of being heard, in the interest of justice.