ITAT Guwahati Judgments — July 2020

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void and bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain mandatory prior approval from the Joint Commissioner as required by Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the assessee's audited stock value was higher than the stock found during the survey, and that the additional income offered by the assessee was sufficient to cover potential profits from any undisclosed sales.

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce evidence before the lower authorities to substantiate its claim that the cash payments were refunds of customer advances. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the assessee's modus operandi.

The Tribunal held that the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA, without any saving clause, meant that the provision was to be treated as if it never existed. Consequently, the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was void.

The Tribunal held that the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA, without a saving clause, meant the provision was to be treated as if it never existed. Consequently, the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was void, and the reference to the TPO was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have estimated the profit without rejecting the books of accounts. Considering the subsequent years' profitability and the lack of specific defects found in the assessee's books, the Tribunal directed the estimation of income at 2.5% of the turnover.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits violates the principles of natural justice. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the excess stock should be added, not the entire amount. A lumpsum of Rs. 40,000/- was directed to be added as profit.

The tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following established jurisprudence, the tribunal found the penalty imposition to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/turnover, and the AO's original assessment, which treated the undisclosed amount as business turnover, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on probability and guesswork, not specific errors.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing ex-parte orders without granting adjournments, despite the assessee's attempts to participate, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing ex-parte orders without granting adjournments, despite the assessee's attempts to participate, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and non-speaking, and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/turnover, and the AO's original assessment, which treated the undisclosed amount as business turnover, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on probability and guesswork, not specific errors.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing ex-parte orders without granting adjournments, despite the assessee's attempts to participate, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate from the Designated Authority. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, including filing the necessary declarations and obtaining a certificate from the Designated Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate from the Designated Authority. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, including filing the necessary declarations and obtaining the certificate from the Designated Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for settling the dispute.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, after the assessee complied with its requirements.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was in compliance with the requirements of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, after the assessee had fulfilled all necessary conditions.