ITAT Patna Judgments — March 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the application was granted, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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 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 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 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 Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked a clear link to the escapement of income. It also found that the assessee had fully established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, which were repaid in a similar manner.

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The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn.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 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 held that the unregistered sale agreement and possession letter were not legally valid to prove the earlier sale. The registered sale deed clearly indicated the sale transaction occurred on the later date with the third party and that sale consideration was received and possession handed over then.

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

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 considered the submissions of both parties and the documents on record. It was evident that the assessee's grievance was settled in principle due to the condonation of delay in filing Form 10B by the Ld. CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by directing the AO to give consequential effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(E) expeditiously. The Tribunal found that the core issue of the belated filing of Form 10B was resolved by the condonation order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the operative direction being for the AO to implement the condonation order.

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 considered the reasons provided in the condonation petition and decided to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was admitted 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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the Assessing Officer's method for stock valuation was based on assumptions and that the GP enhancement lacked proper justification and supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the notice u/s 148 was validly issued, its service was not proven, which is a procedural requirement for assessment. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and directed the AO to serve the notice u/s 148 and make a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to file a return and present their submissions.

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.

The Tribunal held that in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing before either of the authorities below. While the DR prayed for restoration to the CIT(A), the Tribunal was of the view that since the cases were decided ex-parte before the AO and there was no representation at all, it would be reasonable and fair to restore these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing before either of the authorities below. While the DR prayed for restoration to the CIT(A), the Tribunal was of the view that since the cases were decided ex-parte before the AO and there was no representation at all, it would be reasonable and fair to restore these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing before either of the authorities below. While the DR prayed for restoration to the CIT(A), the Tribunal was of the view that since the cases were decided ex-parte before the AO and there was no representation at all, it would be reasonable and fair to restore these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The Tribunal held that in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing before either of the authorities below. While the DR prayed for restoration to the CIT(A), the Tribunal was of the view that since the cases were decided ex-parte before the AO and there was no representation at all, it would be reasonable and fair to restore these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing before either of the authorities below. While the DR prayed for restoration to the CIT(A), the Tribunal was of the view that since the cases were decided ex-parte before the AO and there was no representation at all, it would be reasonable and fair to restore these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity of hearing before either of the authorities below. While the DR prayed for restoration to the CIT(A), the Tribunal was of the view that since the cases were decided ex-parte before the AO and there was no representation at all, it would be reasonable and fair to restore these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was subjected to a search, the amount of ₹86,51,551/- offered and disclosed in the return of income for AY 2015-16 was not part of any disclosure made under Section 132(4) of the Act during the search. The Tribunal found that this disclosure was purely voluntary and not linked to any incriminating material found during the search or any statement recorded under Section 132(4). Therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of Section 271AAB. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that there was no satisfaction recorded by the AO, either in the assessment order or the penalty order, regarding the undisclosed income. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue beyond the validity of the penalty under Section 271AAB.

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.