ITAT Panaji Judgments — January 2025

The assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing ITR and Form 10B was accepted by the Ld. CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b). Consequently, the tribunal held that the non-compliance under Section 12A(1)(b) ceased to exist. The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO to pass a fresh order in line with the CIT(E)'s direction.

The ITAT found that the NFAC allowed the appeal without proper enquiry, verification, or stating points of determination and reasons, thus violating Section 250(6) and Section 251(1)(a). The ITAT set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. NFAC is directed to provide the assessee opportunities, examine evidence under Rule 46A, and then pass a speaking order in compliance with Section 250(6).

The Tribunal, relying on its Standing Orders and Supreme Court judgments, held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor for determining jurisdiction. As the Assessing Officer was located in Bellary, which falls outside the Panaji Bench's jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with leave to file it before an appropriate bench.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous due to non-compliance and non-payment of taxes under Section 249(4)(b). The Tribunal, however, emphasizing principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's revision order, confirming that the AO did not undertake proper verification regarding the compensation paid to the retiring partner. It directed the Assessing Officer to fresh adjudicate the disputed issue on merits after conducting due verification and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee leave to revive it if the dispute remains unsettled under the VSVA scheme for any reason. The assessee was absent during the hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the revenue authorities overlooked material evidence despite the genuineness of purchases not being doubted by the AO, and the assessee had rectified stock entries. To ensure justice, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed purchase transactions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to estimate income at 5% of the disputed purchase value, applicable only for this assessment year.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the entire disputed issues back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence, subject to paying a cost of Rs. 500/- to the Income Tax Department within one month. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) sustained the additions without providing the assessee proper opportunity or considering evidence regarding cash balance and sources. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing a fair hearing for the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue had no objections. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under Section 69A without providing proper opportunity to the assessee and overlooking material evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the disputed issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that adequate opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the appellate forum is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. Since the Assessing Officer was outside the jurisdiction of the Panaji Bench, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the sole decisive factor for determining the jurisdiction of the appellate forum, citing Supreme Court precedent and ITAT rules. As the AO was located in Hubli, a region outside the Panaji ITAT Bench's territorial jurisdiction, the Panaji Bench lacks the authority to entertain these appeals. The appeals were dismissed as not-maintainable, with leave for the appellants to file them before an appropriate bench.

The Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the sole decisive factor for determining the jurisdiction of the appellate forum, citing Supreme Court precedent and ITAT rules. As the AO was located in Hubli, a region outside the Panaji ITAT Bench's territorial jurisdiction, the Panaji Bench lacks the authority to entertain these appeals. The appeals were dismissed as not-maintainable, with leave for the appellants to file them before an appropriate bench.

The Tribunal held that the Panaji Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment was located in Bellary District, Karnataka, which falls outside the defined territorial limits of the Panaji Bench. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in 'PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.', the Tribunal affirmed that the 'situs of the assessing officer' is the decisive factor for determining appellate forum jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed as 'not-maintainable', with leave to institute it before an appropriate bench.

The Tribunal, relying on ITAT Rules and Supreme Court precedent, confirmed that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor for determining the appellate forum's jurisdiction. Since the Assessing Officer was located in Hubli, outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits as per amended standing orders, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order confirmed the additions without conducting necessary inquiries, providing independent findings, or giving clear reasons, thereby failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. The impugned order of the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a de-novo adjudication, with a direction to pass a speaking order as per Section 250(6).

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's formal withdrawal of the appeals and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn and proceeded to dismiss them.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's formal withdrawal of the appeals and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn and proceeded to dismiss them.