Loading ITAT cases…
7 orders · Page 1 of 1
The tribunal condoned the 986-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's age and change of CA. It found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was not speaking or reasoned and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed. The assessee was directed to cooperate.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to condone the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds and that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic should be excluded for limitation purposes as per Supreme Court directives. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments instead of making submissions. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee. However, considering the voluminous documents and in the interest of justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
The ITAT found that it was a clear case of non-capturing figures due to a technical glitch and that the assessee had indeed incurred charitable expenditure. The appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication to verify the claim of expenses for charitable purposes and then decide on the eligibility for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening under Section 151 was mechanical and not in accordance with law, as established by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.