ITAT Patna Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal held that the information disclosed in a settlement petition, while useful for initiating inquiry, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for making additions, especially in assessments under Section 153C. The Commissioner's assumption of facts was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the information disclosed in a settlement petition, while useful for initiating inquiry, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for making additions, especially in assessments under Section 153C. The Commissioner's assumption of facts was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the information disclosed in a settlement petition, while useful for initiating inquiry, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for making additions, especially in assessments under Section 153C. The Commissioner's assumption of facts was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the information disclosed in a settlement petition, while useful for initiating inquiry, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for making additions, especially in assessments under Section 153C. The Commissioner's assumption of facts was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the information disclosed in a settlement petition, while useful for initiating inquiry, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for making additions, especially in assessments under Section 153C. The Commissioner's assumption of facts was incorrect.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the information disclosed in a settlement petition, while useful for initiating inquiry, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for making additions, especially in assessments under Section 153C. The Commissioner's assumption of facts was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the counsel's affidavit explaining the bonafide belief. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, including allowing of expenditure against gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow mandatory procedures and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding the partnership firm's income. The addition made under Section 143(1) was not sustainable without proper verification.

The Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer as no explanation was provided by the assessee. The demand will be enforced against any assets left behind by the deceased assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in imposing multiple penalties for non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal also considered the COVID period as a justifiable reason for the assessee's delay in submitting details.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed clearly provided for the remuneration to partners and the mechanism for its quantification. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the trust's application for regular registration and cancelling its provisional registration. The failure to submit the required supplementary trust deed was a significant deficiency.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the non-compliance was not wilful, the assessee deserved immunity under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the AO for a fresh examination. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to obtain necessary information from competent authorities to ascertain the correct income.

The Tribunal held that any assessment proceedings or notices issued to a non-existent entity after its merger and after intimation to the department are bad in law and without jurisdiction. The impugned assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rightly invoked Section 263 as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to apparent inconsistencies in the assessee's submissions and the assessment.