ITAT Patna Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was subject to the condition that if the assessee could not avail the benefits of the scheme, the appeal would be restored.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Ld. DR had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that re-opening of assessment cannot be based on information already known to the AO before the expiry of the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). Since the AO did not frame assessment under Section 143(3) and no fresh material came to light, the re-assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that re-opening of assessment cannot be based on information already known to the AO before the expiry of the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). Since the AO did not frame assessment under Section 143(3) and no fresh material came to light, the re-assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition for cash in hand was unsustainable as the balance sheets were produced during reassessment and no defect was pointed out. The addition for the gift was also deleted as the assessee explained the source of funds and the identity and creditworthiness of the donor.

The tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 147 was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) and a jurisdictional error in issuing the notice under Section 148 by a different officer than the one who framed the assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee needed a proper opportunity to present their case and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee needs a proper opportunity to present their case and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee needed a proper opportunity to present their case and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the condition that it would be restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not approved. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal based on this condition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

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

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that it was pointless to keep the appeal pending. The assessee was given liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.