Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessment order and penalty notice did not clearly specify the grounds for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now provided the relevant documents and considering the principles of natural justice, the matter should be set aside to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This is to ensure the principle of natural justice, allowing the assessee to furnish required documents for registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 127 days considering the assessee's rural background and the reasons provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration under Section 80G of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was incorrect in passing the impugned order before the expiry of the time limit for filing the reply. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees by issuing physical notices and then pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This is to ensure the principle of natural justice, allowing the assessee to furnish required documents for registration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessment order and penalty notice did not clearly specify the grounds for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees by issuing physical notices and then pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessment order and penalty notice did not clearly specify the grounds for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessment order and penalty notice did not clearly specify the grounds for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees by issuing physical notices and then pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of delay without affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Considering the circumstances, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication after verifying the documents to be filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the VSV Scheme and, in line with CBDT Circulars, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if Form No. 2 was not issued or the application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that, as per Section 244A, the assessee is entitled to interest from the 1st day of April of the assessment year until the date the refund is actually granted. Since the refund was granted on 23rd March 2020 via an order u/s 154, the interest should be computed up to this date. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-compute the interest accordingly and provide the working to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for the source of cash deposits. The initial explanation of trading business was not substantiated with evidence and was considered an afterthought. The subsequent explanation regarding sale of property by her father also lacked documentary evidence. The reassessment proceedings were found to be valid.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to provide proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's submission that they had filed Form No. 1 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and were awaiting Form No. 2. The Tribunal considered the relevant CBDT Circulars governing the VSV Scheme. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee opts for a settlement scheme like VSV and files the initial declaration, the pending appeals are typically dismissed as withdrawn, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek a recall of the order and restoration of the appeals if Form No. 2 was not issued within the prescribed time limit or if the application under the VSV Scheme was rejected for any reason. The revenue did not object to this course of action.
Considering the assessee's submission regarding the VSV Scheme and relevant CBDT circulars, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if Form No. 2 was not issued or the VSV application was rejected.
The Tribunal considered the submission and the relevant CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if Form No. 2 was not issued or the VSV Scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While not accepting the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for filing documents, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax when the assessee disputed the very validity of the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The tribunal considered the submission and the CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek recall if Form No. 2 was not issued or the scheme application was rejected.
Considering the submission and CBDT circulars, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if Form No.2 is not issued or the VSV application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) relied on only a few objects and did not consider them in totality, and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to grant another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the object in question was not solely or substantially for religious purposes and that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure related to it. The Tribunal also noted that the trust had removed this object from its Memorandum of Objects and Purposes.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the VSVS settlement scheme. The Departmental Representative raised no objection.
The Tribunal held that issuing only two notices without a final show-cause notice or effective opportunity did not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the rejection orders were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's submission of an affidavit admitting inadvertence in not checking the e-portal for notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, with a direction that non-compliance would allow the CIT(E) to pass orders based on available material.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's submission of an affidavit admitting inadvertence in not checking the e-portal for notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, with a direction that non-compliance would allow the CIT(E) to pass orders based on available material.
The Tribunal held that issuing only two notices without a final show-cause notice or effective opportunity did not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the rejection orders were set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the VSVS scheme. Since no objection was raised by the DR, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if any difficulty arose in implementing the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was excessively technical, as section 12AB registration is a preliminary stage to assess genuineness, not an income assessment, and the trust had explained its non-filing of ITRs. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the VSVS scheme. Since no objection was raised by the DR, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if any difficulty arose in implementing the scheme.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's submission about filing Form No. 1 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and in view of the CBDT Circulars governing the scheme, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of this order and restoration of the appeals in case Form No. 2 is not issued within the prescribed time limit or if the application under the VSV Scheme is rejected for any reason. The reasoning was based on the assessee's proactive step to resolve the dispute under the VSV Scheme and the absence of objection from the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that an assessee opting for a dispute resolution scheme like VSV, while appeals are pending, can have their appeals dismissed as withdrawn with a provision for restoration.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the assessee's AR that Form No. 1 had been filed under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the assessee was awaiting Form No. 2. The Tribunal considered the relevant CBDT Circulars governing the scheme. The reasoning was that the filing of the VSV Scheme form indicates a procedural step towards settlement, making the pending appeals moot at this stage. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order and restoration of the appeals if Form No. 2 was not issued within the prescribed time limit or if the application under the VSV Scheme was rejected for any reason. The Revenue did not object to this approach. No other issues were decided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) relied on only a few objects and did not consider them in totality, and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to grant another opportunity.
The Tribunal considered the submission and, in view of the CBDT Circulars, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if Form No. 2 is not issued or the VSV application is rejected.
The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted position that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte, without the assessee being afforded sufficient opportunity. The assessee's specific contention that notices were not served at the registered email address and mobile number on the IT portal was not controverted by the Revenue. The Departmental Representative also conceded that both orders were ex-parte and did not object to the matter being restored for fresh adjudication. In light of these facts, the Tribunal held that the matter required fresh consideration in the interest of justice. The assessee deserved a proper opportunity to submit his explanation and documentary evidence regarding the claim of indexed cost of improvement. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate and file necessary details during the fresh proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal addressed multiple grounds across different assessment years. For AY 2009-10, regarding the addition of Rs.1,03,43,275/- as undisclosed investment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds, particularly concerning the Rs.25,00,000/- paid as advance for a sale agreement. The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. Regarding the Rs.3,00,000/- addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Mansi Shah, dismissing the ground. The disallowance of loss of Rs.1,32,437/- was confirmed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on grounds 4 and 5 concerning the AO's jurisdiction and nexus to search findings in the provided excerpt, but the overall result suggests these were likely addressed or subsumed. For other grounds concerning disallowances of discount on room rent, employee benefit expenses, and other expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, restricting the disallowances to 20% or 5% as deemed appropriate. The disallowance of depreciation was deleted. The ratio for upholding additions often hinges on the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proof regarding the genuineness and source of funds for transactions.
The Tribunal addressed multiple grounds across different assessment years. For AY 2009-10, regarding the addition of Rs.1,03,43,275/- as undisclosed investment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds, particularly concerning the Rs.25,00,000/- paid as advance for a sale agreement. The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. Regarding the Rs.3,00,000/- addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Mansi Shah, dismissing the ground. The disallowance of loss of Rs.1,32,437/- was confirmed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on grounds 4 and 5 concerning the AO's jurisdiction and nexus to search findings in the provided excerpt, but the overall result suggests these were likely addressed or subsumed. For other grounds concerning disallowances of discount on room rent, employee benefit expenses, and other expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, restricting the disallowances to 20% or 5% as deemed appropriate. The disallowance of depreciation was deleted. The ratio for upholding additions often hinges on the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proof regarding the genuineness and source of funds for transactions.
The Tribunal condoned a 19-day delay in filing the appeal. While the CIT(A) confirmed the additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case, especially considering the company was struck off by ROC and a revival petition was pending.
The Tribunal addressed multiple grounds across different assessment years. For AY 2009-10, regarding the addition of Rs.1,03,43,275/- as undisclosed investment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds, particularly concerning the Rs.25,00,000/- paid as advance for a sale agreement. The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. Regarding the Rs.3,00,000/- addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Mansi Shah, dismissing the ground. The disallowance of loss of Rs.1,32,437/- was confirmed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on grounds 4 and 5 concerning the AO's jurisdiction and nexus to search findings in the provided excerpt, but the overall result suggests these were likely addressed or subsumed. For other grounds concerning disallowances of discount on room rent, employee benefit expenses, and other expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, restricting the disallowances to 20% or 5% as deemed appropriate. The disallowance of depreciation was deleted. The ratio for upholding additions often hinges on the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proof regarding the genuineness and source of funds for transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly addressed material aspects concerning the loan from Origin Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the operational status and legal existence of the lender, a company struck off the register, were critical. The bank statements did not conclusively demonstrate repayments, and the AR admitted inability to confirm repayments. The pattern of transactions indicated a lack of independent creditworthiness. Therefore, the matter regarding the loan from Origin Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. required proper factual verification by the AO. Similarly, for Fringe Properties Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the bank account was opened recently and showed only large receipts and immediate payments, lacking a pattern of sustained operations or independent fund capacity. The source of funds for the lender was not independently explained, raising questions about its creditworthiness and whether it acted as a conduit. The CIT(A) had accepted the genuineness based on subsequent year repayments without examining the lender's financial strength and banking pattern. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order concerning the unsecured loans from Origin Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. and Fringe Properties Pvt. Ltd. (aggregating to Rs. 4.05 crore) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of actual repayment, status and functioning of lender companies, and independent creditworthiness and genuineness of fund sources. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 1 crore under section 69A and the loan from Opus Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. were not explicitly decided by the Tribunal in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, as the filing date was wrongly recorded. On merits, it was held that the interest earned by the cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal addressed multiple grounds across different assessment years. For AY 2009-10, regarding the addition of Rs.1,03,43,275/- as undisclosed investment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds, particularly concerning the Rs.25,00,000/- paid as advance for a sale agreement. The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. Regarding the Rs.3,00,000/- addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Mansi Shah, dismissing the ground. The disallowance of loss of Rs.1,32,437/- was confirmed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on grounds 4 and 5 concerning the AO's jurisdiction and nexus to search findings in the provided excerpt, but the overall result suggests these were likely addressed or subsumed. For other grounds concerning disallowances of discount on room rent, employee benefit expenses, and other expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, restricting the disallowances to 20% or 5% as deemed appropriate. The disallowance of depreciation was deleted. The ratio for upholding additions often hinges on the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proof regarding the genuineness and source of funds for transactions.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee deposits the due taxes and interest, no further interest can be charged on that amount for the period after the deposit. The action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest after the deposit was not justified.