ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) as notices were not received. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the purchase of diamond was treated as an investment and not claimed as a deductible expenditure, it could not be added as unexplained expenditure. The payment was made by an account payee cheque from a disclosed bank account, and the source of funds was explained.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice and did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice and did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance and noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked the required format. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer before adopting the Stamp Valuation Authority's value, even if the assessee does not object. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after referring to the DVO.