ITAT Cuttack Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce material evidence. This was done in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting adequate opportunity. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunities to be heard, considering the medical reasons cited for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that issuing a show cause notice before making any adjustment under Section 143(1) is mandatory. As no such notice was provided by the revenue, the intimation issued stands quashed.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to issue a mandatory show cause notice before making adjustments in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the intimation stands quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's financial statements did not show any expenditure for machinery, tools, or wages, indicating no actual processing of scrap. Therefore, the assessee was deemed to be selling scrap as is.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to issue a mandatory show cause notice before making adjustments in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the intimation stands quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's financial statements did not show any expenditure for machinery, tools, or wages, indicating no actual processing of scrap. Therefore, the assessee was deemed to be selling scrap as is.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's ignorance of tax laws, especially in a remote area. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable before the ITAT. Such orders can only be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT or challenged via a writ petition in the High Court.

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce evidence and cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable before the ITAT. Such orders can only be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT or challenged via a writ petition in the High Court.

The tribunal rejected the adjournment request and, considering the lack of compliance before the lower authorities, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant amortization of upfront lease premium over the lease period. The issue of closing stock valuation was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the required sanction from the competent authority as stipulated in Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act. The sanction was obtained from the JCIT, which is not the prescribed authority for reopening beyond four years.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of share application money in cash, when the authorized share capital was already fully paid up, constituted a violation of Section 269T. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271E was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela was irregular due to a lack of proper jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles. The assessment was restored to the file of the original assessing officer, ITO, Ward-2(4), Cuttack, for proceedings from the point of issuance of the Section 143(2) notice.

The tribunal restored the issue of interest income to the AO for verification of its offer in a subsequent year. The ad-hoc disallowance of travelling expenses was deleted as the wife's travel was for the partner's health. The mismatch in closing balance was also restored to the AO for verification. The unreconciled sundry creditor amount was deleted as it was a negative difference.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant amortization of upfront lease premium over the lease period. The issue of closing stock valuation was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit, such as day-book entries or identification of contract recipients. The profit and loss account also did not reflect receipts from petty contracts.

The tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, holding that delayed PF & ESI payments are not allowable. However, for the PF & ESI issue, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication, while the addition on undisclosed bank accounts was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the 'technical reasons' and the last-minute submission. Therefore, the approval was invalid, and the consequential assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment request due to non-appearance and lack of preparation. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, considering all submissions and evidence, to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's condonation petition for the delay as it lacked a supporting affidavit and a proper explanation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's condonation petition for the delay as it lacked a supporting affidavit and a proper explanation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced regular books of accounts or stock availability evidence before the AO. Considering the assessee's undertaking and in the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions could be made in assessments framed under Section 153A for completed/unabated assessments. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for the first issue concerning cash deposits, the AO's estimation was erroneous as he failed to consider how the amount was treated in the assessee's profit and loss account. For the second issue regarding salary income, the Tribunal set aside the Pr.CIT's order, stating that it was outside the scope of limited scrutiny. The Pr.CIT's order on the estimation of cash deposit was upheld to the extent of Rs. 22,65,000/-.

The Tribunal held that proceedings before the CIT(A) are an extension of assessment proceedings. Since the appeal was pending before the CIT(A), the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration u/s.12A.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions could be made in assessments framed under Section 153A for completed/unabated assessments. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS as it was merely a custodian of funds on behalf of the State Government, and the execution was by a government undertaking. Even otherwise, since the recipient corporation offered the income to tax, the levy under sections 201/201(1A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions could be made in assessments framed under Section 153A for completed/unabated assessments. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions could be made in assessments framed under Section 153A for completed/unabated assessments. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80IB(11A) through rectification under Section 154 was unsustainable. It found that determining the commencement date of commercial production involved interpretation of various documents and evidence, which is beyond the scope of a Section 154 rectification.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80IB(11A) through rectification under Section 154 was unsustainable. It found that determining the commencement date of commercial production involved interpretation of various documents and evidence, which is beyond the scope of a Section 154 rectification.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80IB(11A) through rectification under Section 154 was unsustainable. It reasoned that determining the commencement of commercial production involved interpretation of evidence and was not a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by directing verification of advertisement expenses with bills and vouchers without issuing a fresh notice. Therefore, the revisionary order was unsustainable.

The tribunal held that the issue raised by the Principal CIT (excess payment over Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by account payee cheque) was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the revision order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case after noting the lack of sufficient opportunity before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Such orders can only be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT or challenged via a Writ Petition in the High Court.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Such orders can only be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT or challenged via a Writ Petition in the High Court.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and that natural justice requires an opportunity to be heard and to provide further evidence. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Such orders can only be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT or challenged via a Writ Petition in the High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A). However, to ensure justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not permissible as it did not demonstrate how the original assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr.CIT had merely restored the matter to the AO for a second look.

The Tribunal held that since the value of the jewellery was offered and accepted by the Settlement Commission in the hands of the husband as an application of funds, the addition in the hands of the assessee was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Such orders can only be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT or challenged via a Writ Petition in the High Court.