ITAT Surat Judgments — September 2021

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The issues were not decided ground-wise, and relevant records were not examined.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) as it did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV-20 scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the VSV settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notices and without granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte and non-speaking order, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's alternative plea that the recipient society had included the payment in its income and paid tax. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify this fact, and if confirmed, no disallowance should be made.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished substantial details and that the PCIT(E) had not fully considered them. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial details in its earlier replies, which the PCIT(E) did not adequately consider. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not record satisfaction regarding the proper service of notices to the assessee. Therefore, the order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates passing an order on points of determination with reasons.

The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is fatal to the reassessment proceedings and renders them void-ab-initio due to lack of jurisdiction. The assessee's cooperation in the proceedings does not cure this defect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is fatal to the reassessment proceedings and renders them void-ab-initio due to lack of jurisdiction. The assessee's cooperation in the proceedings does not cure this defect.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice. This procedural lapse invalidated the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice. This procedural lapse invalidated the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D should not be levied. It found that the transactions were with relatives and for family support, constituting a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal also noted that cash transactions below Rs. 20,000 might not be treated as violations.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed allowed for amendments and that the partners had the option not to charge remuneration. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had taken a contradictory stance in a subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the additional 1% stamp duty was levied by the State Government to recover revenue loss on land used for roads and amenities, and it did not form part of the sale consideration or impact the market value of the property. The AO and CIT(A) did not verify the assessee's assertion regarding this additional duty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits, bank statements, passport, and income details of the donor, to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the gift. The addition was based on mere guesswork by the AO.

The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to this submission.

The tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the VSV-20 settlement failed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50,00,000/-, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires decisions on grounds of appeal with reasons. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that duty drawback income is often subject to litigation and uncertainty, making it appropriate to account for it on a cash basis. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, a mixed accounting system is permissible if there is no loss of revenue.

The Tribunal held that even if the agricultural land is registered in the name of a coparcener, the HUF can claim exemption under Section 54B if the land was purchased with HUF funds and used for agricultural purposes by the HUF.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and without discussing the case on merits. Therefore, the order violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. The ground relating to late deposit of employee's contribution was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to ensure a speaking order is passed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as he had made inquiries and taken a reasonable view, supported by jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was therefore not valid as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the VSV-20 scheme and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim for exemption under Section 54F. No documentary evidence, such as booking receipts or allotment letters, was provided to prove the investment in a new residential property.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's settlement under VSV-20 and the revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act by not passing a reasoned order. Therefore, the appeals were restored back to the file of the AO for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment appeal had already been adjudicated. Considering the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act by not passing a reasoned order. Therefore, the appeals were restored back to the file of the AO for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents like ROC returns, PAN, financial statements, and proof of payment via account payee cheques. The onus shifted to the AO to disprove the transactions, which was not done.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present its case and evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested adjournments due to the time needed to compile old records.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt income.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed orders without granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without discussing the facts and issues. Therefore, both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Considering the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal held that agricultural land, especially when held as stock-in-trade, is not a capital asset and therefore, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.