ITAT Patna Judgments — September 2020

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was also directed to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer as per a High Court judgment.

The tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits. Dismissal for non-prosecution was deemed impermissible. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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' is not approved by the authorities.

The ITAT found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law as it violated principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel wished to withdraw the appeal as the AO had granted relief. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The principles of natural justice were violated as the appeal was not disposed of on merits.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to resubmit the appeal electronically, and any delay was to be condoned.

The Tribunal held that a penalty imposed pursuant to a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars), is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was not sustainable in law because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the charges against the assessee. The Tribunal quashed the impugned penalty.

The Tribunal held that a penalty imposed pursuant to a defective notice, which does not specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars), is not sustainable in law. The penalty was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable in law because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the charges against the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the assessee's application under the "Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme" is not accepted, the appeal would be revived.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective and invalid because it did not clearly specify the charges or the relevant clauses of Section 271AAB under which the penalty was to be imposed. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the penalty notice was deficient as it did not specify the exact nature of the default (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Relying on various case laws, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for fuel losses, but directed a lump sum disallowance of 0.5%. For tanker fuel and maintenance, it restricted the disallowance to 50% due to lack of evidence from both parties.

The tribunal decided that the assessee deserves another opportunity before the CIT(A) to adjudicate its case in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO under section 50C, even if the assessee did not raise an objection regarding stamp valuation. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for fuel losses, but directed a lump sum disallowance of 0.5%. For tanker fuel and maintenance, it restricted the disallowance to 50% due to lack of evidence from both parties.

The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.