ITAT Ranchi Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that a defective show-cause notice, where the inapplicable limb is not struck off, vitiates the penalty. This is based on the principle that the assessee must be clearly informed of the charges against them for natural justice. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 were defective as they did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inappropriate portions were not struck off. This defect vitiates the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expressed an intention to settle the dispute through the VSV Scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending served no practical purpose.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and clubbed the appeals. For some appeals (ITA No. 239/Ran/2024 to ITA No. 243/Ran/2024), the assessee stated they were proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme. The Tribunal treated these appeals as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is unsuccessful. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/Ran/2024) was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 were defective as they did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inappropriate portions were not struck off. This defect vitiates the penalty.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous because a revision petition under Section 264 had already been filed and an order was passed on it. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was non-maintainable and infructuous.

The Tribunal held that a defective show-cause notice, where the inapplicable limb is not struck off, vitiates the penalty. This is based on the principle that the assessee must be clearly informed of the charges against them for natural justice. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inapplicable portions were not struck off. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty levy to be vitiated and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the inapplicable portions were not struck off. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty levy to be vitiated and bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and clubbed the appeals. For some appeals (ITA No. 239/Ran/2024 to ITA No. 243/Ran/2024), the assessee stated they were proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme. The Tribunal treated these appeals as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is unsuccessful. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/Ran/2024) was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and clubbed the appeals. For some appeals (ITA No. 239/Ran/2024 to ITA No. 243/Ran/2024), the assessee stated they were proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme. The Tribunal treated these appeals as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is unsuccessful. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/Ran/2024) was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and clubbed the appeals. For some appeals (ITA No. 239/Ran/2024 to ITA No. 243/Ran/2024), the assessee stated they were proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme. The Tribunal treated these appeals as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is unsuccessful. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/Ran/2024) was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and clubbed the appeals. For some appeals (ITA No. 239/Ran/2024 to ITA No. 243/Ran/2024), the assessee stated they were proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme. The Tribunal treated these appeals as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is unsuccessful. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/Ran/2024) was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and clubbed the appeals. For some appeals (ITA No. 239/Ran/2024 to ITA No. 243/Ran/2024), the assessee stated they were proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme. The Tribunal treated these appeals as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is unsuccessful. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/Ran/2024) was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. For some appeals, it was noted that the assessee was proceeding with the Direct VSV Scheme, making it purposeless to keep the appeals pending. These appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply for reinstatement if the scheme failed. For other appeals concerning penalty, they were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act was invalid because it provided only six clear days for compliance, instead of the mandatory seven clear days as per the law and judicial precedents. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered null and void.

The Tribunal held that a defective show-cause notice, where the inapplicable limb is not struck off, vitiates the penalty. This is based on the principle that the assessee must be clearly informed of the charges against them for natural justice. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared and had also not complied with notices before the lower authorities. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that while opportunities were given, the order of the CIT(A) was not adjudicated substantially as per Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that while opportunities were given, the order of the CIT(A) was not in line with Section 250(6) of the Act, and rights/liabilities were not substantially adjudicated. Considering it was not a deliberate non-compliance and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one final opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that while opportunities were given, the order of the CIT(A) was not in line with Section 250(6) of the Act, and rights/liabilities were not substantially adjudicated. Considering it was not a deliberate non-compliance and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one final opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 15 days considering it was not inordinate or intentional. While acknowledging that the assessee had not appeared before the Tribunal, it was noted that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and requires proof of deliberate and willful furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this case, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to bring on record evidence to justify the penalty imposition, and the mens rea of the assessee was not proven.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before them either. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the nature of income tax laws as welfare legislation, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the PCIT for fresh adjudication. The PCIT was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 15 days considering it was not inordinate or intentional. While acknowledging that the assessee had not appeared before the Tribunal, it was noted that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not examine the assessee's claim under Section 54 of the Act in the consequential assessment order, despite the explicit direction from the Tribunal in the previous round of litigation. This failure to follow the Tribunal's order renders the assessment order void ab initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on grounds of maintainability, as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. However, the revenue was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if it is later found that the case falls under any exceptions to the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear, they filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed after the due date, making them time-barred. They also considered that the Id. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance, and the rights and liabilities were not substantially adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear, they filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed after the due date, making them time-barred. They also considered that the Id. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance, and the rights and liabilities were not substantially adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear, they filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed after the due date, making them time-barred. They also considered that the Id. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance, and the rights and liabilities were not substantially adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear, they filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed after the due date, making them time-barred. They also considered that the Id. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance, and the rights and liabilities were not substantially adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear, they filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed after the due date, making them time-barred. They also considered that the Id. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance, and the rights and liabilities were not substantially adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear, they filed written submissions. The Tribunal found that the penalty orders were passed after the due date, making them time-barred. They also considered that the Id. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance, and the rights and liabilities were not substantially adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to comply with notices at all levels, income tax laws are welfare legislation and the benefit of doubt should be given to the taxpayer. The Tribunal acknowledged that non-compliance might be due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and not necessarily deliberate. Therefore, adhering to principles of natural justice, the matter was restored.

The tribunal observed that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not comply, leading to ex parte orders where the merits were not substantially adjudicated. Applying principles of natural justice and considering tax laws as welfare legislation, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is advised to be more vigilant in future compliance.

The Tribunal noted that while five opportunities were given, the assessee failed to comply, attributing it to financial difficulties and the impact of demonetization. The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, granting a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had adjudicated whether the amount was a lottery win or a gift. To ascertain the taxability, the relevant facts needed verification.

The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, stating that the medical certificate had discrepancies and was not authentic. However, the CIT(A) and the Revenue's DR could not specify these discrepancies. The Tribunal found that the medical certificate clearly indicated the assessee was suffering from Hepatitis around the time of the delay.

The Tribunal held that since the search and seizure were conducted in the premises of a third party, and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found there, the proper procedure should have been to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 147/148. The Tribunal relied on pronouncements from the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.

The Tribunal held that since the search and seizure were conducted in the premises of a third party, and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found there, the proper procedure should have been to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 147/148. The Tribunal relied on pronouncements from the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.

The appellate authority held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the additional evidences. As per Rule 46A(3), the CIT(A) has the power to admit such evidences and seek a report from the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee failed to comply, the circumstances might have been beyond their control. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one final opportunity for adjudication.

The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot deny a claim for exemption under Section 11 based solely on the non-furnishing of Form-10 during the processing of the return under Section 143(1)(a). Such a determination requires factual verification and cannot be made as a prima facie adjustment.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's intention to settle the dispute via the VSV Scheme, dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for reinstatement of the appeals if the VSV Scheme settlement fails, subject to legal parameters.