ITAT Patna Judgments — March 2022

AMS EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE FOUNDATION,KISHANGANJ vs CIT(EXEMPTION), PATNA

ITA 311/PAT/2018[2018-19]Status: Heard29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's submissions, which were received after the order was issued. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

RAM BABU SAH,ROHTAS vs ITO, WARD-3(4), SASARAM

ITA 189/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: Heard22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present his case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the deposits.

ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD,PATNA vs PR. CIT-1, PATNA

ITA 23/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction was exercised beyond the period of limitation. The limitation for revision runs from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order, if the issue was not part of the reassessment proceedings.

M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

ITA 39/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had not validly exercised its revisionary jurisdiction. The AO had conducted inquiries and taken plausible views based on the assessee's submissions, and the PCIT's disagreement with the AO's view did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous.

M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

ITA 36/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had not validly exercised its revisionary jurisdiction. The AO had conducted inquiries and taken plausible views based on the assessee's submissions, and the PCIT's disagreement with the AO's view did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous.

M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

ITA 37/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had not validly exercised its revisionary jurisdiction. The AO had conducted inquiries and taken plausible views based on the assessee's submissions, and the PCIT's disagreement with the AO's view did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous.

M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

ITA 38/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had not validly exercised its revisionary jurisdiction. The AO had conducted inquiries and taken plausible views based on the assessee's submissions, and the PCIT's disagreement with the AO's view did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous.

ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD,PATNA vs PR. CIT-1, PATNA

ITA 22/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction was exercised beyond the period of limitation. The limitation for revision runs from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order, if the issue was not part of the reassessment proceedings.