ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to file the appeal on time. The appeal was admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass the final assessment order as he failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C by not awaiting the DRP's directions after the assessee had filed objections. The final assessment order was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 50D was not applicable as the consideration was ascertainable from the transferees' accounts provided by the assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not dispute this fact.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not dispute this fact.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing the set-off was indeed erroneous as the loss from AY 2009-10 had already been fully set off in earlier years. However, the Tribunal found the Principal CIT's working regarding excess set-off to be incorrect and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the set-off based on the actual loss determined.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,02,96,348/- as the assessee failed to reconcile the difference in import valuation and substantiate claims of damaged goods. The relief granted for damaged fruits was not disturbed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notice, even if late, and that penalty should not be imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct. Relying on the Hindustan Steel Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable as it lacked specific reasons and proper examination of accounts. It also directed the AO to grant credit for advance tax and TDS, as the assessee appeared entitled to it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the "Vivad Se Viswas Scheme" application is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that revision proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and invalid. The impugned order passed by the PCIT was cancelled on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not maintainable as the reasons recorded for reopening did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which is a prerequisite for reopening after four years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the primary onus to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans lies with the assessee. It remanded the issue of Rs. 4,10,05,680/- back to the AO for fresh verification, while considering the opening balance of Rs. 10,66,42,149/- as not addable in the current year. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the finance cost claim and allowed the deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to pass a reasoned order after hearing the assessee and considering all available evidence, including any new evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the transactions with trade debtors. The CIT(A)'s reasoning, which considered advances made and the nature of trade transactions, was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in this unabated assessment. It also held that additions under Section 68 for share capital from group entities with common directors, where transactions were through banking channels and confirmed, were not justified.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance as notices were not received. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be non-compliant with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors for the running accounts. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in treating the same as unexplained cash credits and expenditure.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper opportunity for the Assessing Officer, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the disallowances were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn with a condition. The appeals would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected by the authorities.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn with a condition. The appeals would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected by the authorities.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The appeals would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected by the authorities.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn with a condition. The appeals would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected by the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of under-valuation of closing stock was arbitrary and erroneous, as it was based on a rough estimate by the survey team and ignored the assessee's books of account. Furthermore, the assessment order was deemed bad in law because the jurisdictional AO had not issued the notice u/s 143(2).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not contain any points of determination or detailed adjudication as required by law. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient supportive evidence and confirmations from the investor entities, including their financial details and explanations for the source of funds. The Revenue had not rebutted this evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal was conditional, with the appeal to be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved.

The Tribunal decided to correct the typographical errors in the order to accurately reflect the parties involved and the addresses for communication. This ensures the official record is accurate.

The Tribunal decided to correct the typographical errors in the order to accurately reflect the parties involved and the addresses for communication. This ensures the official record is accurate.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeal would be restored if the assessee failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it did not specify the exact contravention (furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income) for which the penalty was being imposed. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court and the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" was not approved by the authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicant. The share premium was also deemed justified based on EPS and NAV calculations.

The tribunal held that the penalty order was vague as it did not clearly specify the charge for which the penalty was levied. Furthermore, the income was assessed on an estimate basis, which, coupled with the ambiguity in the penalty order, led to the cancellation of the penalty.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order failed to meet the statutory requirement of framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without dealing with the documentary evidence. The CIT(A) also failed to frame points of determination and provide detailed adjudication as required by law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide evidence of proper service of hearing notices and failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds on merits. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 14A disallowance is not attracted in the absence of any exempt income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal cancelled the penalties levied under Sections 271B, 272B, and 271(1)(b). It held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable if books of account are not maintained, penalty under Section 272B for not quoting PAN is bad in law when PAN was quoted, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on a particular date for Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal held that directing fresh assessment on issues not included in the show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the PCIT's order was modified to exclude these additional issues.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 was bad in law as the AO lacked valid reasons and material. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance of losses was found to be factually perverse.