ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 143(2) to a dead person is invalid and renders the subsequent assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in the calculation of TDS liability for joint deposit holders. The assessee failed to demonstrate any mistake in the CIT(A)'s computation or provide necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the payments were revenue sharing between the theatre owner and the film distributor for exhibiting films, not contractual or rental payments. Therefore, TDS provisions were not applicable, and the disallowance was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the recipients had admitted the interest income and filed their returns. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in light of the proviso to Section 201(1).

The Tribunal found that the donor had sufficient withdrawals from his bank account to cover the gift amount. Since the assessee discharged his burden by providing evidence for the gift received by his son, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the recipients had admitted the interest income and filed their returns. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in light of the proviso to Section 201(1).

The Tribunal noted that the recipients had admitted the interest income and filed their returns. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in light of the proviso to Section 201(1).

The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and subsequently conducting proceedings under Section 271AAA for the same addition is bad in law as these sections are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was cancelled.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the CBDT circular regarding the tax effect.