ITAT Patna Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-appearance and failure to participate in the proceedings hindered the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by relying on the Assessing Officer's order without considering the merits. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte and lacked adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The dismissal of the appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits was found unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution without examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal found this to be unjustified and decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without adjudicating the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not address the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and dismissed the appeal without examining the merits, solely on procedural grounds. The Tribunal deemed it fit to provide the assessee another opportunity for a just and fair assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities before the CIT(Appeals) to present their case but failed to do so. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance at all stages. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, noting the principle of natural justice, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard, with a caution to cooperate with the proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) was given liberty to pass an appropriate order based on available materials if the assessee failed to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without adjudicating the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not address the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to ensure principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back. The assessee was given one more opportunity to be heard, with a caution to cooperate, failing which the CIT(Appeals) was authorized to pass an order based on available material.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case. To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 6 days as it was not due to negligence and the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the lower authorities were ex parte and did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with a caution to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 180 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the delay was not wilful and justice should prevail over procedural lapses. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on technical grounds without adjudicating on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee could not properly represent his case before the CIT(A). Therefore, for the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Assessing Officer did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal because the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the lower authorities were ex parte and lacked an adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits was not justified.

The Tribunal held that adding the entire difference of Rs. 23,12,899/- as income was arbitrary. It directed that only an 8% profit element on the differential turnover, amounting to Rs. 1,85,032/-, should be treated as taxable profit, while the remaining amount should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application without properly considering the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided photographic and documentary evidence, and that for a religious trust, anonymous donations are not taxable under Section 115BBC.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and denied the assessee an adequate opportunity to present their case. Dismissing the appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee contended the AO failed to issue a show-cause notice and provide adequate opportunity. The CIT(A) dismissed procedural grounds and the ground related to unexplained deposits due to lack of evidence and admission by the assessee during assessment. The Tribunal observed that adjournment was not allowed and no submission was made by the assessee before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the documents filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of advance tax payment without entering into the merits of the case. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal after opting to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme. The DR did not object to this request. The Tribunal accepted the prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). While acknowledging the adjournment request, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). While acknowledging the adjournment request, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). While acknowledging the adjournment request, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). While acknowledging the adjournment request, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the addition of Rs. 7,11,000 as unexplained deposit during the demonetization period was incorrect, especially since the rest of the year's deposits were treated as business income. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the 8% net profit rate on the entire bank deposits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). While acknowledging the adjournment request, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based on a change of opinion without any new material is not permissible. It further found that the share transactions were genuine, supported by account payee cheques and conducted through a recognized stock exchange.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based on a change of opinion without any new material is not permissible. It further found that the share transactions were genuine, supported by account payee cheques and conducted through a recognized stock exchange.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based on a change of opinion without any new material is not permissible. It further found that the share transactions were genuine, supported by account payee cheques and conducted through a recognized stock exchange.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based on a change of opinion without any new material is not permissible. It further found that the share transactions were genuine, supported by account payee cheques and conducted through a recognized stock exchange.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based on a change of opinion without any new material is not permissible. It further found that the share transactions were genuine, supported by account payee cheques and conducted through a recognized stock exchange.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal in limine for non-payment of advance tax was not justified as the assessee's income was below the taxable limit and the addition was a disputed one. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The appellate order did not adjudicate on the grounds of appeal or provide reasons for the decision, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the documents filed by the assessee and had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of advance tax payment, without entering into the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly heard by the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, contravening Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case and for a speaking order to be passed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case. Principles of natural justice dictate that cases should be decided on merits, especially when delay is not wilful or attributable to the assessee.

The assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal was accepted as they chose to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme. The DR did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions of the assessee and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity by the lower authorities to provide a list of depositors and present proper documentation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that for most assessment years, the assessee's case was unrepresented before the AO, and for AY 2017-18, the AO's findings were based on the AY 2015-16 order. The Tribunal also found that the penalty orders were time-barred. The quantum appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence. The penalty appeals were allowed as time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that for most assessment years, the assessee's case was unrepresented before the AO, and for AY 2017-18, the AO's findings were based on the AY 2015-16 order. The Tribunal also found that the penalty orders were time-barred. The quantum appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence. The penalty appeals were allowed as time-barred.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted.