ITAT Rajkot Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.

The Learned Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had only 'sent' notices for hearing, but they were not 'served' on the assessee, thus denying a due opportunity of being heard. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities to the assessee to respond, but the assessee failed to do so. However, the Tribunal also noted that the AO had passed an ex-parte order, and the assessee claimed to be unaware of the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee claimed that due to the age and illiteracy of its members, they could not understand the notice and comply with the order. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal heard both parties and noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection. The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The ITAT noted that the assessee had filed the appeal inadvertently and that the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench had already adjudicated the matter in a separate appeal. Therefore, the ITAT found no reason to proceed with the current appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have sufficient opportunities to present their case before the lower authorities. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was attributed to the wife's pregnancy and miscarriage, with supporting documentation provided.

The Tribunal noted that the CPC taxed the income at the maximum marginal rate without complete material. The assessee's representative submitted that due to misunderstanding, notices could not be complied with. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO.

The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing and failure to provide a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee did not have sufficient opportunities to present their case and decided to give one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), as notices were merely sent and not served. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT has issued instructions providing a blanket exemption of Rs. 2,50,000/- per person for cash deposits made during the demonetization period, particularly for small assessees. The assessee's case falls within this exemption limit.

The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 42,45,630, which formed the basis for the turnover threshold and subsequent penalty, was deleted by the CIT(A). Since the foundation for the penalty (i.e., the turnover exceeding the threshold) failed, the penalty under section 271B was also deemed unsustainable.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits, as the grounds raised, particularly concerning the non-credit of carry forward loss, were relevant to the order under section 143(1) and the issues were inter-related. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to ignore the ground related to section 154 and adjudicate the appeal on merits after considering the documents and evidences filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty is directly linked to the quantum addition. If the quantum addition is deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty would not stand. Therefore, the penalty appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate it based on the outcome of the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking. The assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The assessee's counsel submitted a letter praying for the withdrawal of the appeal, to which the Revenue's representative had no objection. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal noted that due to a change in the assessee's email ID, they could not comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee had complied with the proceedings before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the assessee's request. Consequently, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal determined that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case, noting the ex-parte disposal by CIT(A) and the AO's failure to address notice service. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the case was not adjudicated on merits by the lower authorities, and the CIT(A)'s order was silent on proper service of notices, especially considering the assessee's claim of illiteracy. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit, granting the assessee a due opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was ex-parte and the assessee did not comply with notices for hearings before the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's representative requested one more opportunity and the revenue did not object, the Tribunal decided to grant another chance. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the department for the non-cooperative attitude and lack of clarity regarding notice service.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively present their case before the CIT(A), potentially due to not receiving notices. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance with notices, which the assessee claimed were not served. The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to explain their case before the lower authorities.

The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a consequential order as per the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn as the Revenue did not raise any objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been granted sufficient opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the AO's order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was rejected, holding that the mistake could not be rectified under section 154. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead their case successfully and that principles of natural justice require sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that a dealership/distributorship contract itself may not constitute an 'event' or 'occasion' under Section 269ST. The CIT(A) considered additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) based its order on additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also considered CBDT Circular No. 25/2022 which clarifies that dealership contracts for cooperative societies do not necessarily constitute an 'event' or 'occasion' for aggregating transactions. It was observed that the EMD accepted from Somnath Marketing was not for sales and thus outside the purview of Section 269ST. Further, single-day transactions did not exceed the threshold.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The delay in filing the return of income was condoned, which was the sole ground for the rejection of the assessee's claim under section 80P of the Act.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal noted that while notices were issued, their service on the assessee was not explicitly detailed. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's counsel requested withdrawal of the appeal, stating that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days, noting that the assessee had provided medical certificates and reports to substantiate the severe illness of his wife, which caused tension in the family and prevented him from filing the appeal on time. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of advancing substantial justice. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the non-service of notices on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessing officer failed to appreciate that the deposits were realized from debtors and opening cash balances, as evidenced by balance sheets and cashbooks from previous years. The lower authorities did not appreciate or refute the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Revenue's counsel had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal recorded the assessee's statement of withdrawal.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer, violating principles of natural justice. The assessment order, thus, was not sustainable. The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's method of calculating yield was flawed and not in line with industry practice or the assessee's consistent accounting method accepted in prior years. The Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case was also considered. Regarding purchases outside books, the Tribunal found no discrepancy after verifying the balance sheet and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind to all the issues raised by the PCIT during the original assessment proceedings. The assessee had provided detailed explanations and supporting documents. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's intervention stemmed from a mere difference in perception regarding a plausible view taken by the AO, which does not warrant revision under Section 263. Citing several precedents, the Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking revisional power under Section 263 were not fulfilled.

The Tribunal found that since the underlying quantum addition for non-collection of TCS under Section 206C had been entirely deleted by the CIT(A), the assessee was not liable to file Form 27EQ. Applying the legal maxim "Sublato fundamento cadit opus" (when the foundation is removed, the structure falls), the Tribunal concluded that the late fees levied under Section 234E for not filing Form 27EQ could not be sustained. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.