SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC was not applicable for A.Y. 2015-16 for claiming deduction under Section 80P, as its provisions were extended to cooperative societies for Section 80P from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction even if the return was filed late.

HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

The ITAT Panaji Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing that the situs of the AO (Mumbai) falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench in Mumbai.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous decision involving the assessee's brother. Following the precedent, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction under Section 10(38). Consequently, the penalty under Section 271 was also deleted.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the case of the assessee's brother. Following that precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of deduction under Section 10(38) of the Act.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their responsibility by providing names and addresses of persons who advanced money and confirmed the transactions. The onus then shifted to the revenue, which failed to discharge it. For the boundary wall advance, income was assessed at 8% of the amount. For cash withdrawal and redeposit, no addition was sustained.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their responsibility by providing the names and addresses of the parties who made the advances, and the onus shifted to the revenue to prove otherwise. For the boundary wall advances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess income at 8% of the amount. For cash withdrawals and deposits, no addition was sustained.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 15,000/- per appeal was imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, considering the non-cooperation. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- per appeal was imposed on the assessee.

the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the 1d. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. The first being that no notice/s 143(2) had been issued to the assessee in respect of return filed by the assessee and the second is that there is no incriminating material found in the course of search which has been used for the purpose of

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was in compliance with the ITAT's order for de novo assessment and should be treated as a return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 143(2) was indeed required, and its absence vitiates the assessment. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable, and since no incriminating material was found, the assessment was rightly quashed.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the return filed pursuant to the Tribunal's direction was not an original return u/s 139, thus notice u/s 143(2) could not be issued. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was not available at the time of original assessment and that legal issues can be raised at any point. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the assessment on the grounds of no incriminating material.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that a return filed pursuant to a Tribunal's direction for computation purposes is not considered a return under Section 139, thus a notice under Section 143(2) cannot be issued. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no such material was found for the impugned assessment year, and the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable.

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was only for computation purposes due to the Tribunal's direction and not a return under Section 139, thus Section 143(2) notice was not applicable. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable and there was no incriminating material for the assessment year.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay were reasonable and plausible and condoned the delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.