ITAT Surat Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because a Special Leave Petition (SLP) regarding delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel and, in the absence of any objection from the Department, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed by a previous ITAT order due to invalid notices issued to a deceased person, the penalties levied based on that assessment are not sustainable. Therefore, the penalties were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the principle of audi alteram partem was violated. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record a categorical finding as to whether the penalty was being imposed for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity is fatal to the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for failing to appear before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient time to furnish details during the remand proceedings. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision after considering all submitted and future documents.

The Tribunal held that since the property belonged to the partnership firm and profit on its sale was reflected in the firm's accounts, the addition made in the hands of the assessee (a partner) was not sustainable. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as cost before the CIT(A) could proceed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized documents were from a third party, and the assessee's involvement or the truthfulness of the transactions was not established. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not justified.