ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the double deduction was claimed due to a mistake by the assessee's Chartered Accountant and not due to intentional concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of the gross profit rate at 45% was based on surmise and conjecture, as the impounded material did not reflect all expenses and past and subsequent assessment years accepted the assessee's declared GP rate. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the GP ratio considering past and similar business history.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of the gross profit rate at 45% was based on surmise and conjecture, as the impounded material did not reflect all expenses and past and subsequent assessment years accepted the assessee's declared GP rate. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the GP ratio considering past and similar business history.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) order was a non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice by not assigning reasons or providing cogent evidence for rejection. Therefore, the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to grant approval.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee had raised a ground regarding lack of proper opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for hearing and that the ex-parte order violated the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to present their case properly before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and non-speaking, and that it did not consider the assessment records. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in the appeal was less than the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal was contrary to the Department's policy decision.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for the disposal of the appeal.