ITAT Guwahati Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of expanding the scope of assessment beyond the 'Limited Scrutiny' issue without obtaining the prescribed written approval from the Principal CIT/CIT was without jurisdiction and bad in law. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity of hearing before the AO and the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment application violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and sought to withdraw the appeal. As the respondent did not oppose this request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity of hearing before the AO and the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that dismissing a statutory first appeal without a proper opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. The CIT(Appeals)'s reliance on a Supreme Court decision for a different context was inappropriate.

The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was bad for violation of the principle of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was unsustainable and violated principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was duty-bound to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and therefore bad in law. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TAR due to issues with the previous year's audit and the departure of its accountant.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be denied the deduction merely because the return was filed belatedly, especially when the claim was otherwise allowable on merits. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that condoned similar delays.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issues of disallowances on legal/professional charges, accounting charges, and rent to the AO for verification of individual payment thresholds. The disallowance on delayed interest payment was allowed in favor of the assessee, following a precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in this appeal was Rs. 23,85,571/-. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs are to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that the addition was not justified as the assessee had provided names and addresses, some creditors appeared in person and submitted documents, and the PAN requirement was not mandatory for the assessment year. The tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that since clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted from the Income Tax Act with effect from 01.04.2017, it would be treated as if it never existed. Therefore, the PCIT could not exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 263 based on this omitted provision.

The Tribunal held that a defective show cause notice, which fails to specify the exact charge against the assessee, renders the penalty proceedings invalid. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not given a proper opportunity by the Assessing Officer. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as the respondent (revenue) did not raise any objection. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee despite a letter being filed. In the absence of the assessee's representation, the appeal could not be adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the issuance of certificates under Section 5(1) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, indicating a settlement of the tax disputes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the issuance of certificates under Section 5(1) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, indicating a settlement of the tax disputes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed without jurisdiction because the AO who passed the order failed to satisfy the conditions precedent under Section 147, specifically by not recording reasons and issuing a Section 148 notice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by the second AO was without jurisdiction as the conditions precedent under Section 147, including recording reasons and issuing a notice under Section 148, were not satisfied by him.

The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be sustained because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective for not specifying the exact charge against the assessee. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the issuance of certificates under Section 5(1) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, indicating a settlement of the tax disputes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the issuance of certificates under Section 5(1) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, indicating a settlement of the tax disputes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of not receiving notices was plausible, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte dismissal order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was defective as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal ruled that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid because the show cause notice did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This defect renders the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be sustained because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal ruled that a defective notice invalidates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the appeal. Since the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for correction. The name of the assessee's representative in the order has been amended to Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, FCA.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective for not specifying the exact charge against the assessee. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal decided that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty proceedings.