Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CITA to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and adjudicate the dispute afresh. The assessee was also granted liberty to raise additional grounds and furnish additional evidence.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority decided the appeal ex parte. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the lower appellate authority for de novo adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considering the pursuit of a rectification application. The Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence and raise new grounds.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect assumptions of facts. The bank statements did not support the figures mentioned by the AO, and crucial details like the assessee's address and PAN were missing in the reasons recorded. Furthermore, the PCIT's approval was granted mechanically without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were framed ex parte due to the non-furnishing of requisite evidence by the assessee. However, considering the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and to ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and furnish evidence.
The tribunal held that if the rectification application was not pending, there was no reason for the CITA to dispose of it. The tribunal restored the appeal to the CITA for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present additional evidence and grounds.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) after the filing of a belated return in reassessment proceedings is fatal, as this is a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for Rs. 2 lakhs from property sale and also submitted a cash book reflecting cash transactions and withdrawals. The Tribunal found that the cash book showed no negative balance and covered all cash deposits and withdrawals. The cash withdrawals made by cheque were treated as a source for later cash deposits. The Tribunal held that the assessee had properly explained the entire source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not verify if the credits in the joint account belonged to the assessee's wife. Regarding the cash credit of Rs. 30,52,957, it was noted that while the affidavits of five farmers were not accepted due to common format and dates, a list of 54 farmers and supporting bank statements were submitted later. The Tribunal found that these details required verification by the AO.
The CIT(Appeals) erred in law by enhancing the assessment without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to show cause, which violates Section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act and the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that salary arrears of a deceased person, received by a legal heir, can only be taxed in the hands of the legal heir in their capacity as such, not in their individual capacity. The provisions of Section 159 of the Income-tax Act were considered relevant and ignored by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that framing an assessment in the name of a deceased person, after being duly notified of the death and provided with legal heir details, renders the assessment illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a detailed explanation for the cash deposits, including business income of ₹7,22,738/- which was accepted by the lower authorities. It was also noted that the AO's computation included this business income. The Tribunal found that the sources explained by the assessee were sufficient to cover the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 144 based on an unsigned notice u/s 142(1) without issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act was void ab initio. The provisions of Explanation 2(a) to Section 147 of the Act are applicable when no return is furnished within the prescribed time limit, necessitating a notice under section 148 for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice and framing an assessment in the name of a deceased person, when the Assessing Officer was aware of the death and legal heirs, renders the assessment illegal and void ab initio. Other grounds were left undecided as they became academic.