ITAT Patna Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal found that while the initial delay was attributable to illness, there was no explanation for the subsequent prolonged delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for want of tax effect, as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by the CBDT instruction. The Revenue was given liberty to revive the appeal if the tax effect was found to be higher or if the case fell under exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal were not in consonance with ITAT Rules. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of sale of immovable property, unexplained expenditure, and salary income difference.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred by misclassifying the trust and failing to properly examine its religious objectives and activities. The Commissioner was required to conduct a proper inquiry as per Section 12AA(1)(a).

The Tribunal held that the subsidies received (transport, interest, power, and excise refund) were in the nature of reimbursement of costs incurred for setting up industries in backward areas. Therefore, they had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activities.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing a CBDT circular prohibiting appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This circular was applicable to pending appeals even though the original appeal was decided on merits earlier.