ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity for hearing and had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable in cases of search initiated during a specific period, and if a penalty is leviable, it should be under Section 271AAA, not Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of the DVO's report, which is not sufficient information to form a belief of escapement of income as per the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. Therefore, the reopening and subsequent reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of the DVO's report, which is not sufficient information to form a belief of escapement of income. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment and the subsequent orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening were for verification of investment, not for escapement of income. Citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was bad in law due to improper reopening.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine, without examining the merits, based on the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's cross objection was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing despite due notice, it indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the return of income in response to the notice under Section 142(1). Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing and no adjournment was sought, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not present for the hearing and did not seek an adjournment, they were not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing and no adjournment was sought, it indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the addition made was not based on the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Consequently, the order passed under Section 263, which was based on this flawed assessment order, was also unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order was unsustainable because there were two divergent judicial views on the issue, and the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisionary powers under Section 263 were not rightly invoked.

The Tribunal allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding tax effect thresholds for filing appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding tax effect thresholds for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The circular is binding on the Department as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which directs that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which directs not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue in limine. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which directs that no appeal should be filed before the Tribunal if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.