Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 1 of 2
The tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by providing only four days for compliance. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding bad and doubtful debts and other provisions.
The tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by providing only four days for compliance. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT took judicial notice of the Supreme Court's orders regarding the extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 and found the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient. It condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding bad and doubtful debts and other provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, citing principles of natural justice and previous judicial precedents. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting additional evidence regarding PAN surrender without providing an opportunity to the AO under Rule 46A. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the evidence was a departmental document and no prejudice was caused to the revenue, especially since similar cases for other branches were dropped.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding no sudden increase in capital in prior years and noting that the increase was due to book entries, not cash credit. The revenue failed to demonstrate any error in the CIT(A)'s findings. The revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The tribunal noted that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte. Given the procedural irregularities and the assessee's claims regarding notice and declaration of income, the tribunal is likely to remand the case for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. It restored both matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect in all three appeals was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as admitted by both parties. Consequently, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine.
The ITAT found that the cash deposits were primarily from cash withdrawals, and the difference between withdrawals, deposits, and household expenses supported the assessee's claim of money lending. Therefore, the opening cash balance could not be treated as undisclosed income for the current year, and the addition was deleted.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect in all three appeals was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as admitted by both parties. Consequently, in adherence to CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect in all three appeals was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as admitted by both parties. Consequently, in adherence to CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, citing principles of natural justice and previous judicial precedents. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT held that while the assessee failed to respond to notices, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and the CIT(A) was to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. It restored both matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
The ITAT condoned a 196-day delay in filing the appeal due to the demise of the assessee's counsel. It then held that since the assessee regularly declared income under Section 44AD and was not required to maintain books of accounts, the sales could not be rejected merely on suspicion, especially given the irregular nature of the scrap business. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained sufficient cash balance from regular business operations and cash sales, including a significant withdrawal in July 2016, to justify the deposits during demonetization. It noted the assessee filed returns under Section 44AD and had substantial stock movements. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, rejecting the assessee's claim of reasonable cause. However, it set aside the penalty under Section 271B, stating that a penalty for not getting accounts audited cannot be levied when no books of account were maintained, as this would amount to double penalty.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was inserted with prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Since the periods in question were prior to this date, the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E was not valid. The appeals were allowed, and the levied fees were cancelled.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, rejecting the assessee's claim of reasonable cause. However, it set aside the penalty under Section 271B, stating that a penalty for not getting accounts audited cannot be levied when no books of account were maintained, as this would amount to double penalty.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of supporting documents to prove the deposit belonged solely to the husband, 50% of the cash deposit should be added to the assessee's income. The mere sworn statement of the husband was not considered sufficient evidence.
The tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Section 68 to estimate profit on cash deposits when the source (PDS business) was not disputed. It also found that adding contractual receipts and commission/brokerage again amounted to double addition, as these were already declared by the assessee. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was inserted with prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Since the periods in question were prior to this date, the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E was not valid. The appeals were allowed, and the levied fees were cancelled.
The Tribunal noted that while there was initial non-compliance, the assessee subsequently provided relevant information, which was accepted, leading to the completion of the assessment. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was inserted with prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Since the periods in question were prior to this date, the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E was not valid. The appeals were allowed, and the levied fees were cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was inserted with prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Since the periods in question were prior to this date, the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E was not valid. The appeals were allowed, and the levied fees were cancelled.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order lacked a reasoned decision on merits, which is required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT observed that the assessee, being a charitable institution, might not have filed returns due to no taxable income and was unaware of faceless proceedings. To ensure overall justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case and submit relevant information.
The tribunal allowed the addition of Rs. 1,00,000, partly allowed the addition of Rs. 10,83,890 by estimating income at 8%, and deleted the additions of Rs. 6,15,905 and Rs. 30,000. The addition of Rs. 4,225 for accrued interest was directed to be declared at maturity.
The ITAT found the AO's 3% estimation lacked proper basis and directed the AO to re-estimate the income by adopting the average profit margin of the preceding three years as the base.
The tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were void ab initio because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) failed to specify whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. This ambiguity rendered the initiation of penalty proceedings legally unsustainable.
The tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were void ab initio because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) failed to specify whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. This ambiguity rendered the initiation of penalty proceedings legally unsustainable, following judicial precedents.
The ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of being heard and the assessee to comply with notices and submit relevant information.
The tribunal observed that a part of the outstanding GST liability was already disallowed in a previous assessment year, leading to a potential double addition. It also noted that the assessee made payments towards the outstanding GST in the current year. Therefore, the tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the double disallowance and to allow credit for payments made.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits, despite a previous remand from the ITAT for a merits-based decision. The tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) merely relied on the original ex-parte assessment. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that in the quantum appeal for the same assessment year, the assessment was set aside for de novo assessment because the assessee, being illiterate, had not received the notices. The Tribunal found it inconsistent to reject the same factual submission in penalty proceedings when it was accepted in the quantum appeal.
The tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, acknowledging that the assessee could not present their case due to non-receipt of notices.
The tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of proceedings and the assessee's lack of opportunity to be heard, decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer. This allows the assessee to present his case and provide necessary information after receiving proper notice.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. It set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide a proper hearing and the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. It remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution and did not address the issues on merit. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and for a decision on merits.
The ITAT held that the lower authorities erred in invoking incorrect provisions and not providing proper opportunity to the assessee. The tribunal observed that the issue primarily relates to Section 50C and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment after giving the assessee a proper hearing.
The ITAT remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to accept and verify the additional evidence submitted by the assessee before the first appellate authority. The AO is directed to redo the assessment afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the source of cash deposits in the joint account, considering the additional evidence (bank statements) submitted by the assessee. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after observing principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that the PCIT-1 violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the notice under Section 263 was issued on March 27, 2022, requiring a response by March 29, 2022, with the limitation expiring on March 31, 2022. The tribunal remitted the matter back to the PCIT-1 to decide afresh after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also a 10-day delay before the ITAT, considering the assessee's charitable activities and the interest of substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with directions for both parties to cooperate.