ITAT Cuttack Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of 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 set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all supporting details and appear before the CIT(A) with reasonable opportunity for both parties.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A was invalid as there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Pr. CIT were already examined by the Assessing Officer, who had formed an opinion. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was an attempt to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer, which is not permissible. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's direction to treat the entire difference as undisclosed income was an attempt to force his opinion over the AO's, which is impermissible when the AO has considered the issue and taken a possible view. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to explain before the Pr.CIT.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not go into issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. However, the issue regarding the applicability of Rule 7A for computing income from rubber manufacture was within the limited scrutiny scope and thus sustainable.

The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

The ITAT, considering the interest of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower order, restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all material evidence.

The Tribunal held that the deposit in the capital gains account scheme is permissible for capital gains arising from the sale of land, especially since the assessee had paid tax on this deposit in a subsequent year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's substantial salary income and other sources of income indicated a likely source for the investment. Therefore, the addition of the silver utensils as undisclosed investment was deleted based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not considered the depreciation claim on intangible assets during the original assessment. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's direction to examine the depreciation claim was correct. However, the direction to 'disallow' was modified to remove the mandatory disallowance, allowing the AO to re-examine.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT could not revise the assessment order on issues not covered by the limited scrutiny, especially when the AO had already examined and accepted the primary issue. The Pr.CIT's order was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is illegal if no addition is made on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. Therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities but failed to provide evidence before the lower authorities. To ensure natural justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to a reasonable cause, as the assessee had no control over the CAG's audit process. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee, being an agricultural produce market committee, was eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAB). The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s recognition of technical glitches faced by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee another chance to comply with notices and present its case. The assessee was directed to produce all material evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. This was to grant the assessee another opportunity to produce its books of accounts, which were not produced before the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication to ensure natural justice and provide an opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued without a mandatory show cause notice, violating the proviso to Section 143(1). Therefore, the intimation was treated as void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.

The Tribunal held that the sale deeds were executed by the father for his own requirement of money and were genuine transactions. Therefore, the consideration received by the assessee from his father was not taxable as income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) can draw adverse inferences if the assessee continues to be negligent.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised returns filed after the audit and payment of taxes. The initial rejection of appeals by the CIT(A) was deemed a travesty of justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect instead of summarily rejecting the application. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the condonation application was not validly filed by the assessee, as it was signed by the advocate and not the assessee. Furthermore, the Vakalatnama did not authorize the advocate to sign such applications. Consequently, the appeal was not admitted.

The Tribunal held that the initial intimation under Section 143(1) was in violation of the proviso as no show cause notice was issued. Furthermore, the withdrawal of condonation of delay in a Section 154 order was considered a debatable issue, which cannot be decided under that section.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not adequately examined the nature and details of the expenditure. Therefore, the revision order passed under Section 263 by the CIT(Exemptions) was sustained.

The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to grant the assessee adequate opportunities of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and provide explanations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly found that the properties did not belong to the assessee-trust and the AO had failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings were confirmed.

The tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, and the CIT(A) order lacked a decision on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was bad in law because a mandatory show cause notice was not issued to the assessee as required by the proviso to Section 143(1). The Tribunal also noted that the audit report was filed along with the return, and the AO should not have denied exemption.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to grant the assessee another chance to comply with notices and present evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee is granted another opportunity to produce books of accounts and explain the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the charge of clandestine removal/undervaluation cannot sustain solely on the basis of pen drive data, especially when obtained in violation of statutory provisions. Since the assessment orders did not clearly elaborate how the undisclosed turnover was determined and the facts were not fully produced, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the charge of clandestine removal/undervaluation cannot sustain solely on the basis of pen drive data, especially when obtained in violation of statutory provisions. Since the assessment orders did not clearly elaborate how the undisclosed turnover was determined and the facts were not fully produced, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to produce material evidence.

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

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence. This was done in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the intimation u/s.143(1) was erroneous as it made adjustments not permissible under that section. It also noted that the AO should have granted the benefit of deduction u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) if available.

The Tribunal held that 'on the date of transfer' includes any time during that day. Since the assessee owned two residential properties at the beginning of 27.12.2014, the proviso to Section 54F was applicable, disallowing the exemption.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for stock shortfall, finding the explanation of goods with 'Karigaras' unsubstantiated. However, it deleted the addition for undisclosed investments, noting that the statement offering Rs. 6,50,000 was made to buy peace and the assets did not relate to the assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. However, since the assessee had not produced evidence before the lower authorities and had not filed an income tax return, the case was restored to the AO for readjudication.