Loading ITAT cases…
290 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to represent their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte despite an adjournment letter being filed and that documents relied upon by the AO were not shared with the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and did not address the subject matter of assessment or the grounds of appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, despite the assessee not responding to notices. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, affording the assessee a last opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits, despite the assessee claiming lack of opportunity. The Tribunal found it appropriate to offer one last opportunity and remit the matter back for adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO had accepted cash advances from customers as genuine credits and recoveries from debtors as valid. Therefore, these amounts should be considered as cash sources available to explain the demonetization period deposits.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and the FAA's order, restoring the matter to the FAA for a fresh assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to represent their case before the FAA.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to provide points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by section 250(6). The appeal was filed with a 12-day delay, which was condoned.
The Tribunal held that making two additions on account of the same cash deposits, by treating them as both unexplained credits and business receipts, constitutes double taxation. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained credits.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The respondent/assessee prayed that the appeal be treated as withdrawn. The Learned DR did not advance any arguments. In view of the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the appeal is treated as dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the appellant failed to remove the deficiency in the tribunal fee despite a notice. The revenue's representative was present, but no one appeared for the appellant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 500 days, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the inadvertent filing with the incorrect bench.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly served and did not receive adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed show-caused regarding the total cash deposited in her bank account, not just during the demonetization period. Therefore, the assessee's contention that the addition should be restricted only to the demonetization period was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the entire interest amount was unjustified. It directed the deletion of the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 2,47,843, as tax on this amount was certified as paid by the payee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had proceeded on an incorrect assumption of facts by concluding that the assessee's activities were charitable when they were factually religious. The assessee had also sought registration as a religious trust, not a charitable one.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D, which pertains to the acceptance of loans or deposits otherwise than by account payee cheque or draft, was levied on an incorrect assumption of facts. The AO's own findings indicated that the amount in question was related to 'taken back advances' in cash, which falls under Section 269T and attracts penalty under Section 271E, not Section 271D.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the FAA's order were both passed without the assessee's appearance. Therefore, to provide a reasonable opportunity, the FAA's order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that the cause of justice should be advanced. The explanation for the delay was deemed just and proper, and the delay was condoned.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/infructuous because the total tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as per the amended CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.
The Tribunal held that since the impugned additions, on the basis of which the penalty was levied, were set aside by the Tribunal in the assessee's quantum appeal, the very foundation for the imposition of the penalty stood collapsed. Therefore, there was no justification to sustain the penalty.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that provisions for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be just and proper.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and the FAA's order, restoring the matter to the FAA for a fresh assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to represent their case before the FAA.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that the cause of justice should be advanced. The explanation for the delay was deemed just and proper, and the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal due to duplication with a prior decided appeal. The Learned DR had no objection to this request.
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal and the scheme opted by the assessee had been accepted by the department. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be reasonable and bona fide, thus condoning the delay. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not adequately represented before the CIT(A) and decided to provide one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and was thus dismissed ex-parte. However, considering the written submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a significant delay in filing the appeal and had consistently ignored notices from both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority. While acknowledging the assessee's unresponsiveness, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to provide one last opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the AO and the CIT(Appeals), citing ill health. However, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing adherence to natural justice.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice cannot be denied on technical grounds and that the procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice. The Tribunal found the delay of 32 days to be meagre and deemed it just and proper to condone it, considering the explanation provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, one more opportunity was given to the assessee.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be reasonable and bona fide. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technical aberrations and the object of procedural rules is to advance justice. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the meager delay of 17 days.
The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal noted the assessee's written request for withdrawal.