ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal held that re-opening the assessment for such a small amount, given the assessee's substantial turnover and declared income, was not warranted. The addition was made without sufficient evidence, and the corresponding sales were not doubted.

The assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the assessee had a reasonable cause for the cash payments and the transactions were genuine. The violation was considered technical and venial.

The assessee's authorized counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's plea regarding his status as a joint account holder during the deposit period. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a definite finding after calling for evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for late payment of electricity surcharge was compensatory and not penal, thus allowable as an expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the reconciliation of liability differences, noting the Revenue's failure to factually contradict them.

The Tribunal held that the advance was a trade advance in the nature of a commercial transaction between sister concerns, made due to business expediency. Therefore, it did not fall under the mischief of Section 2(22)(e) and was covered by CBDT Circular No. 19/2017.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was defective as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such a defective notice renders the penalty proceedings invalid.