Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to cooperate with the NFAC for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the assessee's activities needed to be examined and granted the assessee one more opportunity for substantial justice. The assessee was directed to file a fresh application under the correct section, and the CIT(Exemptions) was ordered to adjudicate it de novo.
The assessee, through their counsel, moved an application to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
During the course of hearing, it emerged that the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue did not dispute this averment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by Shri Rudrapratap Singh Lodhi as the legal representative of the deceased assessee is not maintainable at this stage. The Tribunal noted that Shri Rudrapratap Singh Lodhi had neither proven that he satisfied the statutory conditions defining a 'legal representative' under Section 2(29) of the Act read with Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor demonstrated that he represents the estate of the deceased appellant or is an intermeddler thereof. Furthermore, no action had been initiated against him under Section 159 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal as premature. However, it granted liberty to Shri Rudrapratap Singh Lodhi to file a fresh appeal once he either satisfies the statutory conditions of a 'legal representative' or is proceeded against by the department under Section 159 of the Act, whichever is earlier.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed erroneous orders without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering the documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted the issue of notices and their service upon the assessee, highlighting that the assessee had left his permanent residence in Goa for Agra and had filed returns at the Agra address. Crucially, no notice was served on the given address in the ITR properly. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to send the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the case afresh in accordance with the law, after providing a proper and due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of the assessment but focused on the procedural defect.
The Tribunal found the NFAC's order to be cryptic and lacking in examination of the facts. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that both the lower authorities passed orders ex parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard or for their documents to be considered.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
During the course of hearing, it emerged that the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue did not dispute this averment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the reasons for the delay. The ITAT noted that the assessee had filed the appeal manually within time and was unaware of the e-filing procedure initially. The Tribunal condoned the delay.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Departmental Representative did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the non-cooperation of the assessee was likely due to circumstances beyond their control, such as lockdowns during the pandemic. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to delete the penalties.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit complete documentation and receive a fair hearing. The earlier rejection was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication to ensure justice and fair play.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2013-14 as withdrawn due to the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal upheld the NFAC's deletion of the addition for ingenuine purchases, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the NFAC had passed an ex parte order without independently adjudicating the issues on merits.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the request and the lack of objection.
The Tribunal acknowledged that it might be impossible to furnish complete details for all expenses due to the nature of government contracts. The AR agreed to an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's discussion proceeded ex-parte and lacked substantive adjudication. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The NFAC was directed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not show interest in prosecuting the appeal despite sufficient opportunities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided. The tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the NFAC despite notices. However, the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on the merits. The tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that payments made to a wholly-owned government undertaking satisfy the conditions for genuineness. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.
The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism, and also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act regarding points of determination. In the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice did not specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c). This failure to specify renders the penalty proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the cash purchases and the relationship with the seller were not on record. Consequently, the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication. However, the additions under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit and the estimated disallowance of expenses were upheld.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. Violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for FTC.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory and not a mandatory requirement. Violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC, and the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the rules.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it does not specify the offense by striking off irrelevant portions, citing High Court precedents. For penalties under Section 270A, the Tribunal allowed immunity from penalty due to a delayed filing of Form 68, considering the reasons provided as sufficient to condone the procedural delay.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC order was passed ex-parte without the assessee's presence. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to raise additional grounds or evidence.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated against the appellant, identified as a "legal heir" rather than a "legal representative" under the law, were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide a clear response on whether the appellant represented the estate of the deceased. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB), the Tribunal adopted a stricter construction of the law. It reasoned that for a "legal representative" to be held liable under Section 159(4) of the Act, it must be established that the estate of the deceased has devolved upon them or they are managing it. Since no such finding was present in the assessment or appellate orders, the appeals were allowed on this preliminary legal ground, rendering all other merits-based arguments infructuous. The operative direction was to allow the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated against the appellant, identified as a "legal heir" rather than a "legal representative" under the law, were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide a clear response on whether the appellant represented the estate of the deceased. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB), the Tribunal adopted a stricter construction of the law. It reasoned that for a "legal representative" to be held liable under Section 159(4) of the Act, it must be established that the estate of the deceased has devolved upon them or they are managing it. Since no such finding was present in the assessment or appellate orders, the appeals were allowed on this preliminary legal ground, rendering all other merits-based arguments infructuous. The operative direction was to allow the appeals.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it does not specify the offense by striking off irrelevant portions, citing High Court precedents. For penalties under Section 270A, the Tribunal allowed immunity from penalty due to a delayed filing of Form 68, considering the reasons provided as sufficient to condone the procedural delay.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it does not specify the offense by striking off irrelevant portions, citing High Court precedents. For penalties under Section 270A, the Tribunal allowed immunity from penalty due to a delayed filing of Form 68, considering the reasons provided as sufficient to condone the procedural delay.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority proceeded ex-parte and did not frame points of determination or provide a detailed discussion as required. Considering the possibility of communication gaps with the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities treated the appellant as a "legal heir" and not specifically as a "legal representative" of the deceased assessee. There was no finding that the estate of the deceased had devolved upon the appellant. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that treating the appellant as a mere "legal heir" rather than a "legal representative" was not sustainable in law.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified and deserved to be deleted. The reasoning was that the assessee's alleged non-cooperation during the scrutiny proceedings was justifiable due to circumstances beyond his control. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the newly introduced faceless assessment system, where notices are served via email. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was imposed on grounds that were mitigated by the procedural realities of the faceless regime. The operative direction was the deletion of the impugned penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that for Section 263 of the Income Tax Act to be invoked, the assessment must be both erroneous and cause prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. A mere non-response to a show-cause notice is not sufficient grounds for revision. The Tribunal cited the case of M. L. Chains Vs. PCIT (2024) 461 ITR 457 (All.) which also held similar revision directions as not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the appeal ex-parte without the presence of the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities treated the appellant as a "legal heir" and not specifically as a "legal representative" of the deceased assessee. There was no finding that the estate of the deceased had devolved upon the appellant. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that treating the appellant as a mere "legal heir" rather than a "legal representative" was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority proceeded ex-parte and did not frame points of determination or provide a detailed discussion as required. Considering the possibility of communication gaps with the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals.
The assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal, stating that a revised Form 36 was e-filed to replace the original appeal, but requested to withdraw the revised Form 36 and proceed with the original appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism, and also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act regarding points of determination. In the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.