ITAT Jaipur Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme for settlement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' petition was accepted. The revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme for settlement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme for settlement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable to requisition proceedings under Section 132A, as it is specifically restricted to search initiated under Section 132. Furthermore, since the income was declared in the return filed under Section 139(1) and accepted by the AO, there was no concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the bill in the assessee's name for Rs. 45,000/- represented an unexplained investment as the assessee failed to provide evidence of its source. However, the bill for Rs. 1,75,000/- was deleted as it was found from the partner's residence and not in the firm's name.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the bill in the assessee's name for Rs. 45,000/- represented an unexplained investment as the assessee failed to provide evidence of its source. However, the bill for Rs. 1,75,000/- was deleted as it was found from the partner's residence and not in the firm's name.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay and that a liberal approach should be taken for condoning delays. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are meant to advance justice and should not deny a deserving litigant an opportunity to be heard. The delay in e-filing was considered a technicality, and substantial justice should be preferred over such technicalities.

The Tribunal found that the AO's decision to tax only 10% of unexplained cash deposits without a clear basis was erroneous. The Pr. CIT's order was modified to direct the AO to re-examine debit entries, consider the assessee's explanation, and determine the taxable income afresh.