ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal held that the time limit for revision under Section 263 should be counted from the original assessment order, not the reassessment order, especially when the issue under revision was not part of the reassessment. Since the revision was initiated beyond the prescribed time limit, it was considered time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify the genuineness and allowability of the claimed expenses. Therefore, the Pr.CIT rightly took up the case for revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the sale agreement was genuine and the assessee's withdrawal of Rs. 27 lakhs from the seller's account did not necessarily mean a refund of the advance. Based on legal notices and the seller's reply, it was concluded that the seller acknowledged receiving Rs. 90 lakhs and was only seeking the remaining balance.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be interpreted liberally. It allowed the deduction for long-term capital gains, directing the AO to verify the facts of acquiring the new asset.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back for fresh decision on merits. This was done to ensure justice, considering the unclear details of opportunities provided to the assessee and the lack of independent findings by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarifications. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per the circulars.

The Tribunal held that while a formal application for condonation of delay is required, the deficiency is curable and can be filed at a later stage. Considering the peculiar circumstances, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the delay but failed to file a proper affidavit and supporting evidence. For the ends of justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file appropriate documentation.

The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with the evidence and an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO had accepted the assessee's expenditure and allowed the claim, indicating that the assessee had spent more than its receipts. Therefore, there was no violation of section 11(2) and no case for making further additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the plausible reasons provided by the assessee. It was observed that the CIT(A) had not provided independent findings on all issues, merely affirming the AO's orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the plausible reasons provided by the assessee. It was observed that the CIT(A) had not provided independent findings on all issues, merely affirming the AO's orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the plausible reasons provided by the assessee. It was observed that the CIT(A) had not provided independent findings on all issues, merely affirming the AO's orders.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice and ensure the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to be heard.