ITAT Guwahati Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The scheme's acceptance by the competent authority led to the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not mention the escapement of income being Rs. 1 lakh or more, which is a mandatory condition for issuing a notice under Section 148 after four years. Therefore, the notice was invalid.

The Tribunal held that since more than four years had elapsed, the Assessing Officer was required to mention in the reasons recorded that income chargeable to tax of Rs. 1 lakh or more had escaped assessment. As this condition was not met in the reasons recorded, the notice under Section 148 was invalid, and consequent proceedings were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the Vivad Se Viswas proposal is not accepted or the assessee changes its mind, they can apply to recall the order. The withdrawal does not impede the processing of the scheme forms.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not grant a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and their applications were accepted. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since more than four years had elapsed, the Assessing Officer was required to mention in the reasons recorded that income chargeable to tax of Rs. 1 lakh or more had escaped assessment. As this condition was not met in the reasons recorded, the notice under Section 148 was invalid, and consequent proceedings were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that since more than four years had elapsed, the Assessing Officer was required to mention in the reasons recorded that income chargeable to tax of Rs. 1 lakh or more had escaped assessment. As this condition was not met in the reasons recorded, the notice under Section 148 was invalid, and consequent proceedings were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that Form 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme had been issued by the Department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued by the Department.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued by the department.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 12,41,704/- was a double addition as it represented sales already accepted by the AO. The assessee's explanation that this amount was deposited by sundry debtors for pre-demonetization sales was found plausible and supported by evidence.