ITAT Patna Judgments — April 2025

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash deposits and advances, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order, remitting the matter back for a fresh hearing to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to follow Rule 46A but found the new documents vital for a correct income assessment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to consider the evidence and obtain a remand report from the AO.

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 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 observed that the assessee's primary argument before the CIT(A) focused solely on deposits made before the return filing due date, without raising the issue of Covid-19 related relaxations under the EPF Act. Following the binding judgment of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) had erred in denying the applications without properly considering the evidence and submissions provided by the assessees, both physically and electronically. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(Exemption) to grant a fresh opportunity of hearing and to consider all submitted documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had erred in cancelling the registration without properly considering the submissions and documents provided by the assessees. The principles of natural justice were also violated by not affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside.

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

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 found that the CIT(A) failed to provide independent findings, merely reproducing the AO's order, and denied the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were fact-based but acknowledged potential for the AO to reconsider the issues with a holistic appraisal of books of account, especially considering a possible typographical error in one instance and the benefit of telescoping for capital introduction and advance for land sale.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on facts and that a holistic appraisal of the books of account could clarify the assessee's income. It was also observed that a typographical error in one case and the possibility of telescoping benefits for capital introduction and land advance warranted a fresh examination.

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 assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeals due to their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had participated in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed 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 Tribunal considered the facts and allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Considering the facts, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had enrolled in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed 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 Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of the appeals. Considering the submissions and the facts, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee had submitted a letter stating they had enrolled in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had complied with the necessary procedures. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had already gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

The assessee has requested to withdraw the pending appeals as they have participated in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal noted that the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee and noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to revive them if the scheme proves unsuccessful.

The assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, stating their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

The assessee submitted a letter stating their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had gone into the 'DTVSVS 2024' Scheme, and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to revive them if unsuccessful in the VSVS scheme.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals, stating their enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal granted the withdrawal, with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme outcome is not favorable.

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 Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Considering the facts, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to revive them if the assessee is unsuccessful under the VSVS-24 scheme.

The Tribunal considered the submission that the assessee had gone into the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of appeals. The Tribunal found that the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had already joined the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances.