ITAT Cuttack Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim, as the notice was issued late and the assessment order was passed soon after. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and the assessee requested an opportunity to present evidence. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, as they had not been heard by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's condonation petition due to the vague reason provided for the delay. The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of the delay in filing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed judicial discipline by adhering to the jurisdictional ITAT's order in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to lack of documentary evidence regarding cash deposits. To ensure justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce all relevant documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for readjudication. This is to be done along with the appeal against the original assessment order, as the issues in the current appeal have a direct bearing on the additions made in the original assessment.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, recognizing that the assessee's submissions were not visible to the AO. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application due to non-compliance and non-production of evidence before lower authorities. However, to provide an opportunity to rectify the mistake, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was based on an audit objection, it was done beyond four years from the relevant assessment year. Since the original assessment was under Section 143(3), reopening beyond four years requires a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts, which was not established. Therefore, the reopening was annulled.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to file required documents for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on SBN notes as they were considered part of the turnover. The issues regarding time deposits and Section 80C deduction were remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after examining the evidence of premium payments. The legal grounds raised by the assessee were left open.

The tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for readjudication and examination, directing the assessee to produce details of the alleged loan from Shri Jagannath Mohapatra.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any proof of maintaining cash in hand to substantiate her claim of cash gifts and savings. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) stands confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had made an attempt to explain their case and that the CIT(A) had not raised queries for further clarification. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) was granted liberty to draw adverse inference if the assessee continued with a lackadaisical attitude.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. Liberty was granted to the AO to draw adverse inference if the assessee continued with a lackadaisical attitude.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and substantiate their case, as documentary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities.