SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance, without proper adjudication on merits, violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal allowed one final opportunity to the assessee to present evidence regarding the delay to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to decide on the condonation of delay and then proceed to decide the case on merits.

SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-compliant, principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.

SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to decide the issue of bogus purchase bills as it is sub-judice before the High Court. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh after the High Court's decision.

SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to determine the facts and circumstances regarding the bogus purchase bills additions at this level. It would also not serve any purpose to keep the matter pending. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and then adjudicate denovo.

SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order without proper adjudication on merits violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148. Failure to issue this notice within the prescribed time limit vitiates the assessment.

DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 of the Act by providing sufficient evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries to disprove the evidence. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by providing necessary documentation, including loan confirmations, PAN details, and bank statements. The AO's addition was based on assumptions and investigative reports without sufficient independent inquiry. Regarding unexplained expenditure, the Tribunal found a clear link between the notation and actual bank withdrawals, which were duly recorded in the books. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing necessary documentation. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied on preliminary reports. The unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was linked to a bank withdrawal and recorded in the books. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, while the assessee's appeals were partly allowed or allowed.

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill cannot be allowed if the asset was not recognized in the books and not brought into the block of assets in the year of amalgamation. The issue of set-off of the Dahej unit's loss was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of depreciation.

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue had accepted in the cases of other co-owners that no capital gain arose from the same JDA, it could not take a different stand for the present assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal condoned the 80-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.