ITAT Patna Judgments — January 2025

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 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 noted that the assessee provided substantial evidence and explained the source of deposits. It was also observed that the lower authorities did not properly consider the evidence. The DR suggested restoring the matter to the AO for proper examination.

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 restored the quantum addition issues to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present all relevant evidence. However, the penalty appeals were allowed as the penalty orders were found to be 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not represent their case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond their control. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to get it restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted by the department.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was time-barred but condoned the delay. Since the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal decided the matter based on the grounds of appeal and the arguments of the Ld. DR. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had assessed capital gains based on the execution of the JDA. However, the assessee contended that the JDA did not mature and the transfer was not complete.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's long-standing charitable activity and the nominal rents charged. While agreeing that the activity of raising funds should not be in the nature of trade or business, the Tribunal found that the factual assertion that the activity is not commercial needs to be examined by the CIT(E) with relevant documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had ignored the fact that the joint development agreement was cancelled and no development work was carried out. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that a delay of 778 days could not be easily dismissed, especially when pleading ignorance of law. However, considering various judicial precedents on condonation of delay, the Tribunal felt that the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee. They directed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be adjudicated by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee suffered due to poor persuasion before the lower authorities. The determination of whether an expense pertains to the current or a prior year should be based on specific narration in the accounts.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Given that the assessee is a small trader and claims to be unaware of the proceedings, the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the issue of applicability of Section 50C and the claim under Section 54 were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Considering the interests of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessee's receipts shown in Form 26AS and the return of income. While the interest income issue was largely agreed with the CIT(A), the issues of contractual receipts and unverified expenses were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of unexplained cash deposit was decided against the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order before the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the addition of unexplained creditors. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have confined himself to the substantive issues in the impugned order. The Tribunal remanded the issue of addition of Rs. 3,44,45,828/- back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted that as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee must withdraw their appeals. The tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to get the appeals revived if the scheme is not successful, by filing a miscellaneous application.

The tribunal noted that as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee must withdraw their appeals. The tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to get the appeals revived if the scheme is not successful, by filing a miscellaneous application.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was incorrect. It found that there were two separate contracts: one for the supply of plant, machinery, and equipment, and another for the work contract (erection/setting up). The provisions of Section 194C are attracted for payment for works contract, not for the cost of goods/material.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was incorrect. It found that there were two separate contracts: one for the supply of plant, machinery, and equipment, and another for the work contract (erection/setting up). The provisions of Section 194C are attracted for payment for works contract, not for the cost of goods/material.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was incorrect. It found that there were two separate contracts: one for the supply of plant, machinery, and equipment, and another for the work contract (erection/setting up). The provisions of Section 194C are attracted for payment for works contract, not for the cost of goods/material.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was incorrect. It found that there were two separate contracts: one for the supply of plant, machinery, and equipment, and another for the work contract (erection/setting up). The provisions of Section 194C are attracted for payment for works contract, not for the cost of goods/material.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh examination. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding their non-resident status and the taxability of income in India.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely based on the non-admissibility of additional evidence due to non-compliance with Rule 46A. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the additional evidence and to call for a remand report from the AO if necessary.

The assessee contended that their net profit rate, based on past data for disclosed income, was 7.8%. The Ld. DR could not rebut this contention.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the shortness of delay. Considering the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was less than Rs. 60 lakh.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and lacked examination of the merits of the case. The dismissal was solely on procedural grounds. For justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly examined whether the 'transfer' for capital gains tax purposes was completed upon the execution of the development agreement or upon the handover of the constructed flat. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that out of the total addition of Rs. 8,74,000/-, an amount of Rs. 2,62,051/- was explained as income earned from business and commission, and this amount was also shown in the assessee's return. Therefore, the assessee deserves relief to this extent.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and upheld the Assessing Officer's order without examining the merits of the case. Dismissing the appeal solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits, as required by Section 250(6) of the Act, was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not correctly examined the pleas concerning the date of transfer, the definition of transfer, the property's ownership, and the cost of acquisition. These issues require proper examination of evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not correctly examined the issues, including the nature of the agreement, whether the transfer was complete upon execution of the development agreement, or upon completion of construction and possession. The Tribunal also highlighted the question of whether the property belonged to HUF or the assessee individually.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities was incorrect. It found that there were two separate contracts: one for the supply of plant, machinery, and equipment, and another for the work contract (erection/setting up). The provisions of Section 194C are attracted for payment for works contract, not for the cost of goods/material.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could produce muster rolls for certain years but not for the years under appeal. The CIT(A) had rejected the additional evidence (muster roll) as it was not produced before the AO. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh appraisal of facts.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could produce muster rolls for certain years but not for the years under appeal. The CIT(A) had rejected the additional evidence (muster roll) as it was not produced before the AO. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh appraisal of facts.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee, a society providing benefits to farmers and laborers, had not been properly informed of hearing dates and had faced challenges due to incorrect contact information. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had only challenged the initiation of penalty and not the addition made in the assessment order. Since neither party appeared, the appeal was heard ex-parte based on the DR's submissions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer.

The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order, holding that an order passed in the name of a deceased person is bad in law. The Tribunal, while acknowledging that an assessment order on a dead person is invalid, noted that the AO was unaware of the assessee's death. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could produce muster rolls for certain years but not for the years under appeal. The CIT(A) had rejected the additional evidence (muster roll) as it was not produced before the AO. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh appraisal of facts.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could produce muster rolls for certain years but not for the years under appeal. The CIT(A) had rejected the additional evidence (muster roll) as it was not produced before the AO. The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh appraisal of facts.

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 2% of the total outward expenses. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the materials, found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned but deemed it necessary to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for disallowing Rs. 74,025 were too exacting for expenses under Section 37(1) and directed deletion of this addition. However, regarding the Rs. 7,01,962 addition under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal noted that TDS was required regardless of whether it was under Section 194C or 194H, and since the assessee could not justify claims, this ground was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the documents filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal without examining the merits. The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not effectively confronted with the additions made due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, in the interest of substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.