ITAT Patna Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a fair opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reason reasonable. Considering the lack of opportunity and new documents submitted by the assessee, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to present documents and arguments before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It reasoned that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, obtained necessary approvals, and taken a legally permissible view, making the assessment orders neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It reasoned that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, obtained necessary approvals, and taken a legally permissible view, making the assessment orders neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit the necessary documents to the CIT (Exemption). The CIT (Exemption) was directed to reconsider the application after reviewing the submitted documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the NFAC's order. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh as per the ITAT's earlier directions, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The learned CIT DR submitted an application to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal request and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was illegal and invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked fresh material. The original assessment had already considered and accepted the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was opting for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD and not maintaining books of account, the cash deposits during demonetization should be considered part of the gross turnover and not treated separately as unexplained income.