ITAT Patna Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an old agriculturist with no prior banking experience, had sufficiently explained the source of the deposits. The cash was explained by the sale of agricultural land and past savings, and the deposit was made due to the demonetization policy.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce relevant documents during the assessment and also failed to file written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) and ITAT. However, to meet the principle of natural justice, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities. The assessee also did not substantiate their claim before the ITAT. However, to meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for one more opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the submission and the Ld. DR's submission. It was noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and the assessee's case was not properly represented. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal held that the impugned addition of Rs. 8,06,200/- was not warranted and directed its deletion. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the business activity was proven and the AO's action of treating the entire deposit as unexplained was not justified. The Tribunal considered the submission that the profit element on sales should be brought to tax. Applying Section 44AD of the Act, an estimated profit of 8% on the total deposit of Rs. 12,06,200/- (treated as turnover) was calculated, resulting in an income of approximately Rs. 96,000/-. This estimated income was found to be below the threshold for filing an income tax return or depositing tax. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of unorganized sector businesses with unverified sales, estimation of profit under Section 44AD is a more equitable approach than treating the entire deposit as unexplained income, especially when the estimated profit falls below taxable limits.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO and remitted the matter to the AO for de novo assessment. This was based on the principle of consistency, as similar claims for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) were allowed in subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex parte. The assessee's claim was that the deposits were from cash sales related to their mobile recharge distribution business. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment based solely on withdrawals from the assessee's own bank account is bad in law. The withdrawal of funds from one's bank account cannot be presumed to be a case of escapement of income. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex parte, despite the assessee's claim of submitting documentation. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding reasonable causes. Since the assessee settled the disputes under the DTVSV scheme, the appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF were rendered redundant.

The Tribunal observed that the issue involved the grant of MAT credit paid in earlier years, and the assessee should not be denied this credit due to a typographical error in filing the return. The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex parte. Considering that the cash deposits were claimed to be out of business sale proceeds from an LPG gas agency, and the assessee maintained books of account, the Tribunal felt that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present their case before the Assessing Officer for the interests of justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily due to the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the minimum threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days and condoned the same. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed additional documents and argued for a fresh adjudication. It was felt that remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2007-08, considering the explanation provided as sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) due to the inability of the assessee to represent the case properly before the lower authorities. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2007-08, considering the explanation provided as sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) due to the inability of the assessee to represent the case properly before the lower authorities. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained unrepresented before the lower authorities. Considering this and the assessee's pleas, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, including documents of land ownership and a certificate regarding agricultural income. Since both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision after verification of the additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, instructing to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case regarding the unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had upheld the Assessing Officer's order without considering the assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte after the death of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's pleas regarding the additions were not satisfactorily explained before the Assessing Officer and were upheld by the CIT(A). However, considering the nature of the issues, the Tribunal found it necessary for proper investigation at the Assessing Officer's level.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the peculiar circumstances, including the death of the assessee and the illiteracy of the legal heir, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an agricultural cooperative society and not engaged in business for profit, receiving funds from the government for distribution to farmers. The cash deposits were explained as repayments from farmers, and the Assessing Officer erred in treating all credits as sales turnover.

As per the scheme's provisions, appeals before ITAT are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of the certificate. Since the assessee requested withdrawal and the Ld. DR did not object, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, rather than keeping them pending, given the assessee's decision to opt for the DTVSV scheme. The withdrawal is conditional upon the assessee successfully availing the scheme benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) to substantiate a claim for immunity from penalty under section 273B of the Act, citing reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty due to this lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) to substantiate a claim for immunity from penalty under section 273B of the Act, citing reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty due to this lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte, without properly considering the merits of the case, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, rather than keeping them pending, given the assessee's decision to opt for the DTVSV scheme. The withdrawal is conditional upon the assessee successfully availing the scheme benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) to substantiate a claim for immunity from penalty under section 273B of the Act, citing reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty due to this lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal acknowledged that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) orders were ex parte. The assessee claimed illness prevented timely compliance. Considering this and the documents submitted by the assessee, the Tribunal found it justified to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of advance tax without considering the merits. The CIT(A) also failed to specify the exact amount of advance tax payable and did not exercise the discretion available under Section 249(4) to exempt the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of being unaware of tax laws due to being a first-time taxpayer from a remote area, and the failure of the CA to file the audit report, constituted a reasonable cause. The penalty levied under Section 271B was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and did not address the merits of the case, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that the notices for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic and a subsequent gap, leading to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering that the ends of justice could be met, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim regarding withdrawn and re-deposited amounts was unsubstantiated. However, considering the possibility of ignorance of law and to serve the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to prove their case.

The Tribunal decided that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the source of the cash credit as his own money. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced evidence to support his claim. The reasoning was that once the assessee establishes the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, and offers a plausible explanation for the source of funds, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove it. In this case, the Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that if an assessee provides a reasonable explanation for a cash credit, including the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, and the Revenue fails to disprove it, the addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's grounds for delay, including personal circumstances like his wife's illness, and the subsequent decision on the quantum appeal where the addition was deleted. The Tribunal considered that the assessee deserved a chance to present facts before the CIT(A).

The appellate tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming exemption, specifically the filing of Form 10B. While agreeing with the principle of disallowing the exemption, the tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for computing the income.

The ITAT noted that the assessee filed significant new evidence (11 out of 14 items in a paper book) for the first time before the Tribunal. Considering these facts and circumstances, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to admit the new evidence strictly under the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, and ensuring the assessee adheres to its requirements.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea that the land was agricultural and that they were not cautious in pursuing the matter previously. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to present facts and fresh evidence, and for the CIT(A) to call for a remand report if required.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without addressing the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.