ITAT Patna Judgments — April 2025

The CIT(Appeals) provided several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate her claims, but she neither filed written submissions nor appeared. Consequently, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The ITAT, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, granting one more opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had admittedly not followed the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in filing fresh evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal also felt that such documents were important and would enable the authorities below to assess the correct income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was permitted to submit any number of necessary documents, and thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the Ld. AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to prosecute its application before the CIT(Exemption) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of seven days, which was condoned as the assessee, a senior citizen, cited difficulties in being aware of the order. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not furnished adequate submissions or evidence before the lower authorities and the ITAT. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of seven days, which was condoned as the assessee, a senior citizen, cited difficulties in being aware of the order. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not furnished adequate submissions or evidence before the lower authorities and the ITAT. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The ITAT held that the assessee does not have the liberty to change their mind at the second appellate stage after having expressed a written intention to withdraw the appeal at the first appellate stage. The Tribunal found the assessee's ground for pursuing the matter as an afterthought and not maintainable. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the order of the NFAC and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that a withdrawal request, once made and acted upon by the lower appellate authority, generally precludes the assessee from reviving the appeal on a change of mind, especially without a compelling reason or proper procedure for reconsideration. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to consider the documents submitted online by the assessees. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to consider the documents submitted online by the assessees. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) to uphold the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal found that the principle of natural justice was not followed as the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to its short duration and the reasons provided. The Tribunal found that while the assessee was lax, in the interest of substantive justice, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted a potential typographical error in one of the additions, the possibility of telescoping benefit for capital introduction and land advance, and the prima facie capital availability for the AY 2019-20 addition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders for all three years.

The Tribunal noted a potential typographical error in one of the additions, the possibility of telescoping benefit for capital introduction and land advance, and the prima facie capital availability for the AY 2019-20 addition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders for all three years.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to not fully producing books of accounts and vouchers. However, referencing a High Court decision for civil contractors, the Tribunal directed that the returned income should be accepted and additions be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the Learned CIT(A) had indeed not given any independent finding of fact and had failed to consider any arguments from the assessee's side. The CIT(A)'s order appeared to have verbatim reproduced the conclusions made in the assessment order, and the appeal was dismissed without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant. This indicated a violation of principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the merits of the addition of LTCG or the applicability of Section 45(5A) as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after observing that the assessee had filed it within 30 days of the order's service date. Considering the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present the facts and provide a correct email address.

The Tribunal noted a potential typographical error in one of the additions, the possibility of telescoping benefit for capital introduction and land advance, and the prima facie capital availability for the AY 2019-20 addition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders for all three years.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.