ITAT Kolkata Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment under Section 143(3). Since the initial notice was issued by an officer without jurisdiction and no fresh mandatory notice was issued by the officer with jurisdiction, the assessment order was deemed void.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 had been received. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it did not fulfill the requirements of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, and no tangible material had come into the possession of the AO. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the grounds taken by the Revenue in its appeal were not maintainable. This was due to the absence of any surviving addition to the returned income made by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) in the previous rounds of litigation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee as notices were returned undelivered. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenses attributable to interest-free advances given for non-business purposes are not allowable. However, the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of such advances.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had received Form 3. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unaccounted commission to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to reconcile figures. The addition for unexplained drawings was deleted, and the addition for undisclosed investment was partly confirmed.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to availing the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020". Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing challans and statements, which were corroborated by independent inquiries. The lack of identification numbers on the gold was not a sufficient basis to treat the asset as the assessee's undisclosed income.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming the AO had not inquired into the investments and dividend income, as the assessee had provided details and made suo motu disallowances. Consequently, the twin conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of facts was erroneous and not supported by evidence. The assessee had not claimed deduction for housing loan interest in preceding years, and the interest was correctly treated as part of the cost of acquisition, not an expense related to sale.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law. It found that the Pr. CIT had not correctly appreciated the AO's actions and had raised issues beyond the initial audit objection without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The AO had made inquiries into the issues raised by the PCIT, and the PCIT's allegations were based on surmises and conjectures.

The Tribunal held that since the original reason for reopening (escaped capital gains) did not result in any addition, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions on other issues. The additions made were therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed both grounds of appeal, respectfully following its prior decisions. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of additional depreciation and the disallowance of proportionate interest and administrative expenses under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that railway punitive charges paid for overloading are compensatory in nature and not prohibited by law, thus allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to convert limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny does not automatically render the assessment order erroneous. It found no prejudice to revenue as there were no variations in figures from audited balance sheets and the Pr. CIT did not demonstrate any specific error.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a Form 3 was issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had availed the 'Vivad Se Viswas 2020' scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn as per the instructions of the assessees.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had availed the 'Vivad Se Viswas 2020' scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn as per the instructions of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to direct the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments for years not under appeal before him. Therefore, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to direct the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments for years not under appeal before him. Therefore, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments were bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and the AO. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of non-enquiry was incorrect, and the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was wrongly invoked.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue before invoking Section 263. The CIT's reasoning for setting aside the order was based on a lack of inquiry regarding specific company forms, which was deemed insufficient to establish the order as erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of applying Section 44AD was a plausible view based on the evidence that actual work was executed, even if billing was inflated. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if eligibility issues arose.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to independently apply his mind to the information received and merely reproduced the Investigation Wing's conclusion. The reasons recorded for reopening did not demonstrate a tangible link between the material and the belief of escaped income, rendering the reopening invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s factual finding that the AO had made a blatant and unjustified addition without any basis. The CIT(A) correctly found that the investments were recorded in the books and their source was satisfactory, thus the addition was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction over an order that was already annulled and considered non-est in the eyes of law. The PCIT's interference with a null order was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form number 3 under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had received the necessary form. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as it was barred by limitation due to a significant delay in filing and repeated non-appearance. The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with previous hearing dates.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.