ITAT Cuttack Judgments — April 2025

The assessee filed a petition praying to withdraw the present appeal as infructuous, given the subsequent assessment order. The Tribunal, considering the petition, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) did not specifically mention the shortcomings in the provided documents and that more documents might have been necessary for a comprehensive appreciation of the application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the case revolved around the facts concerning bank deposits and material purchases. While the assessee may not have presented facts effectively before the CIT(A), a considerable number of documents were available that could establish the assessee's position. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide ample opportunity to the assessee to file documents and evidence in support of their claims. The Tribunal found that the assessee had presented fresh evidence before the ITAT. The reasoning for remand was to allow the assessee to present their case with proper documentation and to allow the AO to examine these documents and facts, thereby ensuring substantive justice. The issue of whether the additions under Section 68 and 69A were sustainable, and the specific calculation of the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) and the application of Section 43B, were not decided on merits but were to be re-examined by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the registration was denied for non-compliance and lack of proper representation. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee to make proper submissions before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the registration was denied due to non-compliance and lack of proper representation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to make proper submissions before the CIT(Exemption). The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the denial of registration was due to non-compliance with notices and improper representation by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed that the registration was denied due to non-compliance with a notice and lack of proper representation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee to make proper submissions before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal observed that the registration was denied due to non-compliance with a notice and inadequate representation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given only two opportunities to provide documents and a detailed reply. The CIT(E) rejected the application based on the observation that no substantial charitable activities were being carried out. However, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was noncompliant during assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without a speaking order. For the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasonable cause for non-appearance. In the interest of natural justice, it restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, mandating that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the cash deposits and directed the assessee to appear diligently.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment based on the 2019 notice u/s 148 was invalid as it constituted a 'change of opinion'. The issue of share application money had been thoroughly examined during the original assessment proceedings, and the reasons recorded for reopening did not specify any failure by the assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts, nor did they provide specific details about the new information received.

The Tribunal noted that the Id AR submitted there was a mistake in the representation of facts before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) is bad in law as it was passed without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee, as required by the proviso to the said section. Consequently, the intimation is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was noncompliant during assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without a speaking order. For the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given limited opportunities to submit documents and a reply. Despite the CIT(E)'s observation of non-substantial charitable activities, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee failed to furnish details and documentary evidence before the AO and CIT(A). However, additional evidence was produced before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's application was rejected because they failed to produce necessary documents before the CIT(E). Considering this, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present their documents.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from the bank cannot be treated as expenses, and thus Section 40A(3) is not applicable. Similarly, cash deposits from the cash book and bank withdrawals were also deemed acceptable. Regarding suppressed turnover, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's estimation was based on erroneous calculations and lacked evidence, especially since the Excise audit did not find any such suppression.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not furnish the required details and documentary evidence before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and perused the order. It was noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application because the assessee failed to produce necessary documents. To ensure justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The issue is restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment solely based on a change of opinion regarding the percentage of income to be taxed from commission business. The original assessment had considered commission income at 10% with a speaking order, while the reopened assessment accepted expenditure at 1/3rd of the commission income. This change in approach, without new material facts, constituted a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening under Section 147.

The tribunal held that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, levying a 60% rate, came into effect from 01.04.2017. Since the assessment year was 2015-2016, the 60% rate was not available in the statute book for that period.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an agent for LIC, a government organization, which was authorized to accept demonetized currency during the demonetization period. The assessee did not use the funds for personal purposes and there was no allegation to that effect.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee's reply and relied solely on an unprovided third-party statement. The AO did not comply with the requirements of Section 148A by not deciding on the basis of all available material.

The Tribunal, relying on decisions of its coordinate benches, held that the requirement of filing Form 10/10B (analogous to Form 9A in this context) within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) is merely directory and not fatal. Since the assessee had filed its return u/s 139(4) and Form 9A, and these were available with the AO during both the original and consequential assessment proceedings, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act for all three assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10/10B is merely directory, and failure to file it before the due date under Section 139(1) should not be fatal to the claim of exemption under Section 11(2), especially when the forms were available on record during the assessment. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found that Form 9A and Form 10 were available when the assessment and consequential orders were passed.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10/10B is merely directory, and failure to file it before the due date under Section 139(1) should not be fatal to the claim of exemption under Section 11(2), especially when the forms were available on record during the assessment. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found that Form 9A and Form 10 were available when the assessment and consequential orders were passed.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C(6) are independent of Section 194C(7) of the Act. As the assessee complied with the provisions of Section 194C(6) by obtaining and producing the forms, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19. However, as no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a payment of Rs. 2000/- per appeal as costs to the Tribunal Bar Association.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19. However, as no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a payment of Rs. 2000/- per appeal as costs to the Tribunal Bar Association.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19. However, as no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a payment of Rs. 2000/- per appeal as costs to the Tribunal Bar Association.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The Tribunal granted the withdrawal with a liberty to recall the appeal if there is a change in facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it in the interest of justice to restore all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication, provided the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 2000/- per appeal to the ITAT Bar Association within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost will result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

The assessee's application for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 has been filed and Form 2 has been received. Considering the submissions, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that a perusal of the intimation u/s.143(1) and the provisions of the Act indicates that it is compulsory for the revenue to issue a show cause notice before making any adjustment. As no such notice was issued, the intimation stands quashed.

The assessee's withdrawal of the appeal was accepted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was given liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application was not accepted.

The assessee submitted that they have availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and have filed the necessary forms. Considering these submissions and the filed documentation, the Tribunal found no impediment to allow the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19. However, as no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a payment of Rs. 2000/- per appeal as costs to the Tribunal Bar Association.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1473 days in filing the appeal. Since no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19. However, as no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a payment of Rs. 2000/- per appeal as costs to the Tribunal Bar Association.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte. Considering the explanation given by the assessee and in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was initiated based on a notice under section 148. The screenshot of the e-proceeding clearly shows that the notice under section 148 was issued on 01.04.2021, which is bad in law as it was beyond the prescribed date. Consequently, the assessment order and the revisionary proceedings under section 263 are also bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19. However, as no compliance was made before the lower authorities, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a payment of Rs. 2000/- per appeal as costs to the Tribunal Bar Association.

The tribunal considered the rival submissions and the inability of the assessee to produce documents before the lower authorities. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the tribunal found it necessary to restore the issues to the AO for readjudication.