ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter back for fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with reasonable opportunities of being heard.

The Tribunal, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating service of notice. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to the lack of proper hearing opportunities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable chance to be heard.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not appear to have fixed a date for hearing, despite noting the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to potential violations of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not establish that notices of hearing were served on the assessee. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular also mandates withdrawing or not pressing appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular also applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue in light of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular also applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the low tax effect, which was below the revised monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The assessee's cross-objection was withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the low tax effect, which was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The assessee's cross-objection was withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's revised monetary limit for appeals. The Tribunal noted that the circular applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT. The circular also applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide proper opportunities of hearing to the assessee.