ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained because the show cause notice issued under section 274 did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was directed to be cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and adhering to principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating service of notices on the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering that the assessee had expired before deficiency letters were issued. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) passed the order ex-parte without substantiating the service of the last opportunity letter. Therefore, principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal noted that there was no substantiation that notices of hearing were served upon the assessee. Following the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'), the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal followed the view favorable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the assessee is not specifically made aware of the charges, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The notice issued lacked specificity.

The tribunal held that the order was passed without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not mention issuing notice for hearing to the assessee. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that technical glitches in uploading Form 3CEB, when the report was obtained within the prescribed time, constitute a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271BA was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the appeals ex-parte without ensuring proper service of hearing notices to the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds, including share capital and reserves, and regular sales proceeds, to cover the advances. Therefore, a presumption that own funds were used for the advances should be drawn, and no notional interest income could be computed.

The Tribunal held that Section 194-IA of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the sale consideration per owner was below the threshold limit. Therefore, the demand raised for non-deduction of TDS was incorrect.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and adhering to principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without ensuring proper service of notice and adhering to principles of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory.

The Tribunal noted that there was no record to substantiate the service of notice on the assessee for the hearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the assessee's submissions regarding the enhancement. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) treated documents already filed as additional evidence and did not admit them. The Assessing Officer had denied the claim due to non-production of evidence, while the assessee claimed the documents were furnished but not considered.

The ITAT noted that while notices were issued, there was no proof of service on the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal also found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were not justified as the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had obtained the audit report before filing the return of income and that the filing of the audit report along with the return is directory, not mandatory, relying on various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal found the AO's 11% net profit estimation unjustified without comparable cases and noted the CIT(A) provided no cogent reason for the Rs. 5,00,000 addition. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 2,00,000.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271A for not maintaining books of account was rightly sustained. However, following the Allahabad High Court's decisions, the penalty under Section 271B for not getting accounts audited was deleted as the requirement for audit arises only if books of account are maintained.

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. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard ('Audi Alteram Partem'), were not followed. The assessment order was set aside due to the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard ('Audi Alteram Partem'), were not followed as it was unclear if proper notices were served. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without substantiating service of notices. Adhering to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without substantiating service of notices. The Tribunal also observed that it was unclear if the AO had sought explanations regarding the investment. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, were violated as the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for not providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without substantiating service of notices. Adhering to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.