ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2023

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and make due compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-response to notices. To ensure justice and allow the assessee to clarify its position, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on merits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the shareholders. Consequently, the legal issues regarding notice and transfer were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is mandated to pass a speaking order stating the points, decisions, and reasons, as per Section 250(6). Since the assessee was not given a proper opportunity and the order was not on merits, it was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty is not leviable on an estimated addition. Furthermore, the penalty proceedings were flawed due to the show cause notice not specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the AO not dislodging the assessee's submission regarding reflected income and TDS.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to its file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A is unsustainable when additions are made on an estimated basis, provided the assessee has disclosed all material facts and offered a bonafide explanation. Since the assessee disclosed all material facts and the explanation for not contesting the addition was bonafide, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' as the bank account and cash deposits were already examined in depth during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was unsubstantiated and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay in filing and the assessee's non-cooperation. No reason was provided by the assessee for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished the details called for by the CIT(A) to establish the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished the details called for by the CIT(A) to establish the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished the details called for by the CIT(A) to establish the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed expenses for unloading, local taxi, and meals/snacks, acknowledging their business necessity. However, expenses for tips and miscellaneous items were disallowed due to lack of justification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished the details called for by the CIT(A) to establish the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.