ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the order under section 119(2)(b) refusing to condone the delay is not appealable before the Tribunal. The assessee subsequently withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act refusing to condone delay is not appealable before the Tribunal. The assessee subsequently withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash deposits with reference to its cash-book and FDR ledger. While acknowledging the unusual cash balance, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the cash account in detail, including sources of cash, bank deposits, petty cash, and utilization for investment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under section 143(1)(a) were not justified due to the limited scope of such adjustments. The Explanations inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and did not apply retrospectively to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax disputes for the relevant years under The Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax disputes for the relevant years under The Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax disputes for the relevant years under The Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to apply his mind to the facts, particularly regarding the reconciliation of receipts. The credit for the full contract amount by the Nagar Panchayats indicated completion of work, making the entire amount taxable in the current year under the mercantile system of accounting.

The Tribunal is rectifying minor errors in its previous order. The substance of the decision remains unchanged, with the corrigendum only addressing grammatical and textual inaccuracies.

The corrigendum order makes corrections to the original ITAT order to ensure accuracy in factual reporting and legal reasoning. These corrections aim to clarify the tribunal's findings and ensure the order reflects the intended decision without prejudice to either party.

The Tribunal confirmed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The scheme provides for the automatic vacation of pending appeals before appellate forums.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be wholly un-evidenced and unsatisfactory. The lack of supporting documentation, inconsistent conduct, and shifting claims regarding the ownership of the funds led the Tribunal to reject the assessee's contentions.

The Tribunal clarified specific wording and insertions in various paragraphs of its original order. These corrections pertain to the description of land, capital gains, deductions, and the nature of transactions, aiming for greater precision in the tribunal's findings.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings were valid despite the notice being issued in the name of a deceased person, as the legal representative (assessee) participated in the proceedings and was given an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also found that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding agricultural income, justifying the revision.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and made the required payment.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and made the required payment.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and made the required payment.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors in its earlier order. These corrections do not alter the substance of the original decision or prejudice either party.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors in its earlier order. These corrections do not alter the substance of the original decision or prejudice either party.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors in its earlier order. These corrections do not alter the substance of the original decision or prejudice either party.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors in its earlier order. These corrections do not alter the substance of the original decision or prejudice either party.