ITAT Patna Judgments — June 2023

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 Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.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 revisionary proceedings under Section 263 cannot be invoked when the reassessment proceedings themselves are invalid because no additions were made for the reasons for which the case was reopened. The Tribunal also found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry on the issues raised by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the AO an opportunity to examine the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the AO's report and allowing both parties to be heard.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 8,50,000/- deposited by the assessee's husband, being his professional receipts offered to tax, cannot be added in the assessee's hands. For the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/-, a further relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- was granted, confirming the balance.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) properly analyzed the details submitted by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) also failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that even without 12A registration, income should not be determined on a gross basis; net income considering expenses on charitable activities should be worked out. The orders of the lower authorities were not sustainable.

The assessee requested to withdraw its appeals, stating that the appellate authority's order was based on a Supreme Court judgment unfavorable to the assessee. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that a fresh assessment order was passed pursuant to the section 263 order, with minor additions. The assessee, not wishing to continue litigation due to the smallness of the additions, did not press the appeal.

The assessee requested to withdraw its appeals, stating that the appellate authority's order was based on a Supreme Court judgment unfavorable to the assessee. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the TDS on interest payments. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner rightly exercised powers under Section 263 to set aside the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB(1A) was not imposable as the assessment year in question did not fall within the 'specified previous year' as defined in the section. The CIT(Appeals) order deleting the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's rural background and illiteracy. The Tribunal set aside both the orders and restored the determination of capital gain to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.