Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status as a farmer and the counsel's failure to file on time. To meet the ends of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's rejection of books and estimation of profit at 1% lacked cogent material and relied on assumptions. It noted that the assessee consistently declared similar profits in past years and had actual production evidenced by electricity consumption.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion and not on any new material or failure of the assessee to disclose facts. The original assessment had already examined the issue of share application money.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the source of cash deposits was consistent and supported by evidence of prior surrender. It also noted that Section 115BBE is applicable prospectively.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without discussing the merits of the case, which is against the spirit of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal found it just and proper to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation without proper substantiation and by making additions based on conjecture. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE is applicable prospectively, following judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion and not on any new material or failure of the assessee to disclose facts. The original assessment had already examined the issue of share application money.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the affidavit and the fact that assessment notices were sent to a wrong email ID. The Tribunal remitted both the assessment and penalty issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the affidavit and the fact that assessment notices were sent to a wrong email ID. The Tribunal remitted both the assessment and penalty issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly verify the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on both the technical grounds and the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by salary, business receipts, and sale proceeds of land and household assets. The enhancement of capital gains by the CIT(Appeals) based on a private valuation report was deleted, and the AO's addition for short-term capital gains was also deleted, giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly investigated whether the information received from the investigation wing pertained to income already declared by the assessee. Merely receiving information does not presume non-declaration. The addition was made on the basis of income declared under the wrong section.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was out of previous withdrawals from the bank account. The assessee had also submitted that the delay in depositing the cash was not unreasonable. The Tribunal observed that keeping cash in hand for a certain period after withdrawal cannot be a reason for addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained a cash book and demonstrated that the cash deposited was withdrawn from the bank. Following precedent, the Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot be made for cash already disclosed in the books.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasonable cause due to the assessee's age, background, and medical condition. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment with an opportunity to be heard.
The present penalty appeal is remitted back to the Assessing Officer, who is directed to follow the decision of the High Court on the quantum appeal. The Assessing Officer is permitted to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after the High Court's decision, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deciding the appeals on merits without first condoning the delay. The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR did not controvert the assessee's submission regarding the settlement under VSVS. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the VSVS application failed.
The assessee's Authorized Representative informed the tribunal that the settlement under the VSVS scheme was successful, and therefore, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The Department's representative did not object to this submission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the ex parte assessment and the assessee's lack of awareness. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deciding the appeals on merits without first condoning the delay. The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating it was not deliberate. Although the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, with an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits. The tribunal also observed that the original assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B due to the assessee's non-response.
The Tribunal found that the issue was not decided on merit by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without discussing the merits, which is contrary to the spirit of Section 250(6). The matter was remitted back for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the matter required a fresh assessment in the interest of justice. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of bona fide reasons. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing the DR and perusing the condonation application, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a denovo assessment was required.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The territorial jurisdiction for filing an appeal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer, not the assessee's place of business or residence. This principle has been reinforced by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) were crucial and relevant for adjudicating the addition under Section 68. The Tribunal found it fit to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the admission of these additional evidences, to ensure justice and fairplay. The assessee was also permitted to furnish further evidence.
For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal accepted the agricultural income shown by the assessee on a proportionate basis to the extent of agricultural land owned by the assessee and treated the differential sum as income from other sources. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding the reasons for reopening vague, lacking tangible material, and constituting a change of opinion and fishing inquiry.
For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal accepted the agricultural income shown by the assessee on a proportionate basis to the extent of agricultural land owned by the assessee and treated the differential sum as income from other sources. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding the reasons for reopening vague, lacking tangible material, and constituting a change of opinion and fishing inquiry.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing, as sufficient opportunity was not granted. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the rectification application without considering the apex court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue of additions not based on incriminating material is crucial and subsequent judgments clarify the law, which should be applied retrospectively for rectification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the rectification application without considering the apex court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue of additions not based on incriminating material is crucial and subsequent judgments clarify the law, which should be applied retrospectively for rectification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the rectification application without considering the apex court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue of additions not based on incriminating material is crucial and subsequent judgments clarify the law, which should be applied retrospectively for rectification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition and the consequential penalty. The CIT(Appeals) had considered additional evidence, including bank correspondence, which established that the assessee's PAN was indeed wrongly linked to the institutional account. The revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer had focused only on the demonetization period and had not considered the assessee's overall sales and cash deposit patterns across financial years. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the rectification application without considering the apex court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue of additions not based on incriminating material is crucial and subsequent judgments clarify the law, which should be applied retrospectively for rectification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition and the consequential penalty. The CIT(Appeals) had considered additional evidence, including bank correspondence, which established that the assessee's PAN was indeed wrongly linked to the institutional account. The revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's gross receipts were below Rs. 1.00 crore and the primary object was educational. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-registration and 'mistake apparent from records' under Section 154, without addressing the core issue of exemption eligibility. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances were identical to the assessee's own case for previous assessment years where similar additions were deleted. Therefore, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee for the disputed amount.
The Tribunal held that since no fresh loans were borrowed or advanced in the current year, and the nexus was established in earlier years, the assessee was entitled to the deduction for interest paid. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without due application of mind, as evidenced by the consolidated approval for multiple assessees and assessment years on the same day, and the impossibility of physical file movement. Consequently, the search assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. It found that the AO had applied his mind and conducted necessary inquiries during the reassessment proceedings, accepting the purchases as genuine. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and conducted necessary inquiries during the reassessment proceedings. The revision was deemed to be based on a difference of opinion rather than an erroneous and prejudicial order.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the loose papers relied upon by the AO were 'dumb documents' as their figures did not match the assessee's records or other relevant financial statements. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to establish who incurred the expenditure or how it was funded.