ITAT Patna Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present its case and a remand report was pending, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) had not properly examined the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh examination of the evidence.

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 Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial cash sales over the years, supported by VAT returns, cash books, and audited accounts. Therefore, the cash deposits were considered sourced from these sales.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal noted that the primary issue was the validity of the assessment due to the non-issuance of a Section 143(2) notice. For AY 2015-16, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine if Section 148 and 149 were fulfilled, distinguishing between 'issued' and 'served'.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved a further opportunity to conclusively establish the facts regarding the impugned amount. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed a revised estimation of net agricultural income by allowing 55% as expenses and treating 45% as net profit. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that her income should be assessed in her hands based on prior assessment years and independent assets.

The Tribunal found the AO's estimation method arbitrary and directed that a net profit rate of 45% and expenses of 55% be applied for estimating agricultural income. For Smt. Veena Mishra, the Tribunal held that income should be assessed in her hands based on her independent assets and income.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the issue of cash deposits. The possibility of deposits arising from the petrol pump's cash turnover could not be ruled out. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's explanations and evidence after giving an adequate opportunity to present the case.

The Tribunal noted that the primary issue was the validity of the assessment due to the non-issuance of a Section 143(2) notice. For AY 2015-16, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine if Section 148 and 149 were fulfilled, distinguishing between 'issued' and 'served'.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that an opportunity of being heard was denied and evidence was not considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the issues related to share premium received from residents and non-residents, nor the evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the issue of Accounting Standard-12 was not properly addressed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the receipt and its accounting treatment.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as sales proceeds from the petrol pump business, supported by bank statements and BPCL records. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A and the applicability of Section 115BBE were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the case was decided ex-parte by the AO and the CIT(A) also decided without affording a proper hearing. Therefore, to serve the ends of justice, the case was restored to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order withdrawing the approval was invalid. This was primarily because the reassessment notices were time-barred, and the reference to the PCIT was made under a provision (second proviso to section 143(3)) that was not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of approval by the PCIT was invalid. The reassessment notices were time-barred, and the reference to the PCIT was made under a provision not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order withdrawing the approval was invalid. This was primarily because the reassessment notices were time-barred, and the reference to the PCIT was made under a provision (second proviso to section 143(3)) that was not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order withdrawing the approval was invalid. This was primarily because the reassessment notices were time-barred, and the reference to the PCIT was made under a provision (second proviso to section 143(3)) that was not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the conversion from limited to complete scrutiny was invalid as it violated CBDT instructions, lacking a reasonable view and credible material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained as no incriminating material was found during the search for non-abated assessments. Furthermore, even on merits, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not contain adverse findings.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and thus without jurisdiction. The assessment order was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained as no incriminating material was found during the search for non-abated assessments. Furthermore, even on merits, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not contain adverse findings.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained as no incriminating material was found during the search for non-abated assessments. Furthermore, even on merits, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not contain adverse findings.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of assessment was not justifiable as it was based on a mere suspicion and an unverified report from the Investigation Wing. The addition made by the AO was also not sustainable due to lack of independent inquiry.

The Tribunal found that the appeal order was passed ex-parte and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the appeal order was passed ex-parte and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the proceedings under Section 147 were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the AO in Patna lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices, making the assessment order bad in law.