Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) empowering remand to the AO is applicable only when the assessment order is passed under Section 144. Since the assessment was not under Section 144, the CIT(A) erred in remanding the case.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illiteracy and the previous counsel's negligence. The tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings, and the CIT(A) was instructed to ensure the principles of natural justice are observed.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that procedural law is subservient to justice. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that procedural law is subservient to justice. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the fresh registration granted to the assessee and did not provide an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside due to violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons sufficient. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and the CIT(A) to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 872 days, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 872 days, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's explanation and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and therefore restored the matter for fresh adjudication.