ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2019

The ITAT set aside the impugned ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that in the peculiar facts of the case, the assessee was not provided with an effective opportunity of being heard, as the date of hearing was admittedly a public holiday. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the disposal of the appeal in an ex-parte manner was not in terms of the statutory requirements. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal by stating points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The CIT(A) had not followed this statutory mandate. Accepting the oral undertaking of the assessee's counsel, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law, ensuring the assessee is afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also cautioned that if the assessee abuses the trust, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order based on the material on record. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowings used for repaying old business borrowings is allowable as a deduction. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting it was not in accordance with statutory requirements. The CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal by stating points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision as mandated by Section 250(6).

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not providing a speaking order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that agreeing to an addition to buy peace does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished necessary evidence and that the AO had not specified the exact charge in the show cause notice.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it was not passed in accordance with statutory requirements, specifically Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.