ITAT Cuttack Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing technicalities of the online regime and the need for substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

The ITAT set aside the order of the JCIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The JCIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be reasonable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) finding the reason plausible. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and not procedural. Since the notice was not issued through the prescribed e-proceedings functionality as per CBDT instructions, the reassessment order was quashed for being completed without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the learned AR of the assessee desired to withdraw the appeals. The learned CIT DR had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing bonafide reasons and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal before the CIT(A) was also restored for fresh adjudication, with a cost of Rs. 25,000 levied on the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. To ensure justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing technicalities of the online regime and the need for substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach towards delay condonation. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

The Tribunal noted that the learned AR of the assessee desired to withdraw the appeals. The learned CIT DR had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 2,000.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the first appellate order were passed ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal, the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 due to non-compliance. While the assessee had provided some details to the CIT(A), specific submissions were lacking. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all required details.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present all evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication and without considering the assessee's contentions regarding Section 54F exemption. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire application of income in an intimation under section 143(1) due to a belatedly filed audit report is an impermissible adjustment. The income should be computed on the basis of the Income & Expenditure account, allowing for necessary expenses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as there was sufficient cause. The appeal was admitted for adjudication, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully reconciled bank deposits with declared sales and VAT/GST returns, demonstrating no undisclosed sales. Consequently, additions based on estimated gross profit on alleged undisclosed sales were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the offense as prescribed under the section. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that while Section 14A is applicable, the disallowance must be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. The ground related to interest on delayed TDS was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale bills, Demat account statements, and payment through banking channels. Therefore, the LTCG was considered genuine and eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged unless exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposit was from its opening cash balance of Rs. 24,55,881/- as of April 1, 2016, supported by balance sheets and cash books. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly consider the evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged unless exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire application of income in an intimation under section 143(1) is impermissible. While exemption under sections 11 and 12 can be denied for belated Form 10B, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed without verification.

The Tribunal acknowledged the communication gap and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case and cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case with supporting documents and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate their claims, with liberty to the AO to draw adverse inference in case of non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, directing that the assessee be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made under Section 69A, finding that the sale of machinery was duly recorded and the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. The issue of addition on contractual receipts was set aside to the AO for verification of duplicate entries in the 26AS statement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. It held that the delays were sufficiently explained by the circumstances presented and that a liberal approach was warranted in the interest of justice, especially considering the potential for substantial injustice in the original assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. It held that the delays were sufficiently explained by the circumstances presented and that a liberal approach was warranted in the interest of justice, especially considering the potential for substantial injustice in the original assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the deposits appeared to be reflected in the assessee's balance sheet and that the total income, after considering these, might be below the taxable limit. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.