ITAT Surat Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive the amount in question, which remained in the bank's sundry account pending litigation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable and was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 143(2) to a dead person is invalid, rendering the entire assessment proceeding null and void. The subsequent participation of the legal heir does not validate the flawed initial notice.

The tribunal held that technical flaws should not hinder justice and the appeal was not time-barred. The CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made disclosures on a bonafide belief, and even if not agreeable to the AO, it does not automatically lead to penalty. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted merely because a claim was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity of being heard, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO had not properly examined the assessee's books of account and that the rejection was based on technical grounds without examining the genuineness of the claims. The Tribunal also noted that the expenses and income were properly accounted for in the books.

The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice, specifically 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side), was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the deposits were supported by documentary evidence like confirmations, bank statements, and ledger accounts, and directed their deletion. However, additions related to repayments where no confirmation was filed were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the matter without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, keeping open the option for the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if the issue falls under specific exceptions.