ITAT Patna Judgments — March 2025

The Judicial Member and Accountant Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the application. Since the Departmental Representative had no objection, the Bench granted permission for withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Department's Representative.

The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the application was granted, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS application is not accepted by the Department for any reason whatsoever. The order was pronounced on March 28, 2025.

The Tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal as sought by the assessee. The Revenue's DR had no objection to this request. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the case needed to be examined afresh on merit and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT was directed to pass a reasoned speaking order after considering the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal found that the case needed to be examined afresh on merit. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to pass a reasoned speaking order after considering the assessee's evidence. The assessee was also permitted to file additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reasons cited for reopening the assessment were unsubstantiated and lacked a logical nexus to the facts of the case. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents like loan confirmations, TDS certificates, audited accounts, IT returns of creditors, and bank statements to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding the validity of reopening assessments and the requirement for reasons to be rational and based on material evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was actually issued on April 1, 2021, not March 31, 2021, as stated. This issuance date falls outside the statutory time limit. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the issuance of the notice beyond the statutory period makes the entire reassessment proceeding void ab initio.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. It granted the assessee the liberty to file a miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 process is unsuccessful.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia), as the assessee successfully substantiated its claim based on RBI-provided lists of rural branches and census data. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding Section 36(1)(viii), considering KCC loans as long-term finance.

The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the permission was granted to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the sale agreement with Smt. Awadh Kumari was unregistered and unstamped, and the possession letter was also on unstamped paper. The registered sale deed executed in favour of Shri Gautam Krishna clearly established the sale transaction in 2015 for Rs. 25,79,477/-. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee offered capital gains for the year 2003-04, but the property was registered in the name of a third party in 2015. In the absence of satisfactory legal evidence to prove the earlier sale, the assessee's contention was not acceptable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,06,816/- based on fair market value as against the cost of construction was unsustainable in law as the DM Circle rate cannot be equated with the cost of construction. However, considering the registration value of the property at Rs. 60,15,959/-, the burden was on the assessee to prove the sale deed value was correct, which she failed to do.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and no negligence on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting that it was not due to the assessee's negligence but rather the failure of the engaged tax professional. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's grievance was resolved by the CIT(E)'s order condoning the delay in filing Form 10B. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the CIT(E)'s order expeditiously, allowing the exemption claim.

The Tribunal noted that the matter was decided without the assessee's participation. Considering the interests of substantive justice and the need for an opportunity of being heard, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal request, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the appellant the liberty to revive the appeal through a miscellaneous application if the final settlement under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, does not materialize.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear or provide submissions before the lower authorities. However, to meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for one more opportunity to be heard.

The CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee, deleting the addition made by the AO for excess stock and GP enhancement. The Tribunal found that the AO's method for determining stock value was based on assumptions and did not consider the period between the stock register closing date and the survey date. The Tribunal also noted that the GP enhancement was based on conjecture without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit at 6% without proper examination of the assessee's basic business activity and supporting documents was not acceptable. The failure to establish trade activity was considered prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, which is a mandatory procedural requirement for making an assessment. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to serve the notice u/s 148 and then proceed to make the assessment de novo after providing the assessee an opportunity to file a return and be heard. Relief was granted to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of the cash deposit addition, and a verification was ordered for the other addition. The grounds related to double addition were allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

Despite the repeated non-appearance of the assessee before all lower authorities and the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that, in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to decide them on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Despite the assessee's consistent non-appearance, the Tribunal, in adherence to principles of natural justice, decided to grant one more opportunity. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided on merit after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, instead of sending them back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, in adherence to the principle of natural justice, decided to restore all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to decide the matters on merit after providing the assessee with a fresh and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be genuine and bonafide. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before any of the lower authorities. However, in the interest of natural justice and for the ends of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Applying principles of natural justice and noting that the cases were decided ex-parte by the AO, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the matters on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Considering the principles of natural justice and to provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the matters on merit after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, in adherence to the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity. It restored all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to decide them afresh on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the ₹86,51,551/- was a purely voluntary disclosure by the assessee, not connected to any disclosure made under section 132(4) or incriminating material. It also noted the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO regarding undisclosed income. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disclosure did not fall under Section 271AAB and directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal found that proper representation was not made at the assessment and CIT(A) stages. Therefore, to provide an opportunity for fair representation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the appeal order were ex parte. Due to lack of proper opportunity and non-consideration of evidence, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh decision. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to present submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit. However, upon the assessee opting for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.