ITAT Raipur Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the revision order in a hasty manner without giving a fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, considering the smallness of the tax liability and the disproportionate penalty. The penalty was restricted to the extent of the fringe benefit tax involved.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the VSV Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, considering the smallness of the tax liability and the disproportionate penalty. The penalty was restricted to the extent of the fringe benefit tax involved.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was not erroneous per se, as the assessee provided plausible explanations and supporting evidence for the disputed expenses. The Tribunal found that the PCIT failed to rebut the assessee's submissions and therefore, the revisional action was not sustainable.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the AO to verify if the interest income was indeed included in the partnership firm's income. If confirmed, the addition in the partner's hands would be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the revision order in a hasty manner without giving a fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the revision order in a hasty manner without giving a fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the revision order in a hasty manner without giving a fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration for the property was paid by the assessee's husband, and similar explanations were accepted in his case. Therefore, the addition in the assessee's hands was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the legal ground regarding the validity of reopening under Section 147 and without adhering to principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo decision.

The Tribunal held that inconsistency in claiming benefits under Section 11(1) or 11(2) is not fatal if substantial compliance is demonstrated. The actual utilization of funds in the subsequent financial year needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal accepted the submission of the Revenue and dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was subject to the revised monetary limits set by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. As the tax effect did not exceed the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is invalid and void ab initio. Since the AO admitted that no such notice was issued, the assessment proceedings and subsequent additions were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the assessee's written request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were null and void. It also found that the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 11, as the conditions for deemed registration were met prior to the notice for reassessment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the scheme's benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the scheme's benefits.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were null and void. It also found that the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 11, as the conditions for deemed registration were met prior to the notice for reassessment.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the obligation to explain the source of cash capital lies with the individual partner, not the partnership firm. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the addition made in the firm's hands.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the Revenue and, in light of the information provided, decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed period. The issue identified by the PCIT was not subject to assessment under Section 153A and the regular assessment period had expired.

The Tribunal held that the appeals had become academic due to the subsequent assessment order. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as no prejudice was caused.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals infructuous and no prejudice was caused to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals infructuous and no prejudice was caused to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was based on vague information and statements from third parties without confronting the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) wrongly placed the onus on the assessee to prove the bonafides of the donations.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals academic as no prejudice was caused to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging that the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeals infructuous and no prejudice was caused to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issues raised by the CIT, as evidenced by notices and replies during the assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT's revised order did not allege a lack of verification but rather a failure to apply mind, which was contradicted by the record.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.