Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte orders were passed due to non-receipt of hearing notices. The CIT-DR had no objection to setting aside the orders if the assessee cooperated in future proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme, 2024, and requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, based on the assessee's written request. The reasoning was that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024 and had taken steps towards its completion by filing Form No.1. The Tribunal acknowledged that the matter did not involve complicated issues and could be decided based on the records and the assessee's representative's submissions. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal provided a liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if, for any reason, they failed to avail the benefit of the VSV Scheme. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order indicated the AO's reasons for reopening were based on 'verification of the case records', suggesting no new information or tangible material had come into the AO's possession. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided any triggering factor for re-examining the already concluded scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). It was emphasized that reopening must be based on a bonafide belief stemming from tangible material or reliable information, and not merely a change of opinion. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, which held that after the substitution of Section 147, the AO has the power to reopen only if there is 'tangible material' to conclude that income has escaped assessment, and the reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the additions stood deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence for the source of investment. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they failed to avail the scheme's benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that substantial additions were made under Section 68 and consequential penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(c). The counsel argued that it was not a case of bogus accommodation entry as the stock was held for a period. Considering the quantum of additions and the assurance of future compliance, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities to furnish evidence but failed to do so. However, to provide a chance to explain the details, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Department had no objection, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, in the interest of justice, restored both matters to the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, provided the assessee cooperates. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal was imposed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to respond to notices was due to reliance on a consultant, which constitutes a genuine reason. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and that the assessee had not complied before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment (de-novo). The penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, in the interest of justice, restored both matters to the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, provided the assessee cooperates. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal was imposed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission and the respondent's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that substantial additions were made under Section 68 and consequential penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(c). The counsel argued that it was not a case of bogus accommodation entry as the stock was held for a period. Considering the quantum of additions and the assurance of future compliance, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal observed that substantial additions were made under Section 68 and consequential penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(c). The counsel argued that it was not a case of bogus accommodation entry as the stock was held for a period. Considering the quantum of additions and the assurance of future compliance, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and that the assessee had not complied before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment (de-novo). The penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of Rs. 5,04,80,000/- was correctly considered by the AO, and the payment to True Value was not genuine. However, the AO's separate addition of Rs. 2.54 Crores for disallowed expenses was incorrect as it was not debited separately in the P&L account.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC had dismissed the appeal without rendering any findings on the merits of the case, which is against the principles of natural justice. The Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that the appeal should have been heard by the CIT(A)-TP, as the primary issue involved was Transfer Pricing adjustments. Considering this concession and the improper disposal by the CIT(A)-NFAC, the Tribunal found merit in restoring the matter to the appropriate appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The order of the CIT(A)-NFAC was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A)-TP (or CIT(A) of any other appropriate charge) for fresh adjudication on merits. The concerned CIT(A) was directed to examine all grounds of appeal and adjudicate the issues after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The delay of 11 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging substantial additions under Section 68 and consequential penalties, noted the assessee's contention that the proceedings were ex-parte and that the stock in question was held for approximately four years, suggesting it might not be a bogus accommodation entry for penny stock. The assessee also assured compliance with future notices. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals, both quantum and penalty, to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The AO was granted liberty to pass appropriate orders based on available material if further non-compliance occurred. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or penalties but focused on procedural fairness. The issue of whether the reopening was a 'rowing and fishing inquiry' and the specific applicability of Section 115BBE were not explicitly decided but were part of the broader restoration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant and failed to consider the documents submitted. The notices issued by the CIT also lacked dates. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for proper verification and adjudication.
The tribunal held that interest on GST and late filing fees are compensatory and allowable deductions under Section 37. It also found that additions based on an unsigned excel sheet without corroborative evidence are unsustainable. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present facts and documents before the Assessing Officer, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not taken up by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal also granted liberty to seek restoration if the VSV benefits could not be availed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal, granting liberty to file a fresh application under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT condoned the delay, acknowledging that the notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to the assessee's inability to respond. The case was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to issue notices to the correct email and provide a proper hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing. However, if the assessee continues to be non-compliant, the Ld. CIT(E) can pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing cross-objections due to the assessee's age and health. For the addition on account of unexplained income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. For the addition on account of suppression of income, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% profit reasonable and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this point. For the AY 2014-15, the Tribunal set aside the addition related to suppression of income to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 36 days, which was condoned. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance and lack of reply. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the quantum of addition, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the business of selling mobile recharge coupons in cash is a low-margin business. The assessee's submission of a 3% net profit on receipt being justifiable was considered reasonable after hearing arguments.
The tribunal held that interest on GST and late filing fees are compensatory and allowable deductions under Section 37. It also found that additions based on an unsigned excel sheet without corroborative evidence are unsustainable. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing cross-objections due to the assessee's age and health. For the addition on account of unexplained income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. For the addition on account of suppression of income, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% profit reasonable and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this point. For the AY 2014-15, the Tribunal set aside the addition related to suppression of income to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while failure to respond to notices warrants penalty, imposing separate penalties for each instance of default is not justified. The penalty is intended as a deterrent, not revenue generation.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. For A.Y. 2016-17, the appeal was allowed. For A.Y. 2020-21, the matter was remanded for verification of the source of interest income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's company had been admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the IBC, 2016. As per Section 14 of the IBC, a moratorium is declared, prohibiting legal proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to Section 80IB(10) deduction, as it was decided against the assessee in a prior assessment year's case. The ground related to Section 40(a)(ia) was partly allowed, with directions to the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS non-deduction based on a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had been able to explain the source of cash deposits in his bank account. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute that the assessee made regular withdrawals from his bank account, which the assessee claimed as the source of cash deposits. While the Department raised concerns about discrepancies in the cash book, variations in opening balance, and meager household expenses, the Tribunal found that the Department had not brought any evidence to demonstrate that the cash withdrawn by the assessee was utilized elsewhere. The Tribunal relied on several ITAT precedents, including Mahendrakumar Prahladbhai Vaghela, which held that if an assessee demonstrates cash withdrawals and there is no finding that this cash was invested or utilized for another purpose, an addition cannot be made on the basis that the assessee failed to explain the source of deposits. The Tribunal concluded that no addition was called for in the given facts. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 258 days, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bona fide and not reflecting any mala fide intent, especially considering his ill health and reliance on others. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to prosecute. However, applying the principle of natural justice, it decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present his case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to fully cooperate and submit necessary documents. Recognizing the revenue's contention regarding unnecessary litigation, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Department within 30 days.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It is a settled principle that no one should be condemned unheard, and the assessee deserves a fair opportunity to present its case. The assessment order involves multiple additions and disallowances requiring examination of evidence. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without assessing the evidentiary value, substantive justice was denied due to a procedural lapse. While the assessee's non-compliance is noted, taxation should be based on merit. Restoring the matter allows the assessee another opportunity to defend its case. The Tribunal held that in cases of ex-parte orders where merits are not considered, the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication to ensure fair adjudication and prevent undue hardship. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate and file necessary documents within the stipulated time. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) disregarded the evidence filed by the assessee, citing the absence of the assessee's full name on the bills and the presence of other names, the CIT(A) failed to consider crucial aspects. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the receipts from the sale of agricultural produce were received by APMC (as per purchase invoices issued by APMC) and payments were made to the assessee through banking channels. The CIT(A) omitted to consider these vital facts. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of ₹1,55,610/- as unexplained income. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeal, noting that the application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was approved. The request for withdrawal was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, all the three appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that initiating proceedings under Section 263 was not justified. The assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence for the gold bar receipt and the amount received from his mother. No prejudice was caused to the interest of the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation throughout the proceedings. Despite the addition, considering the quantum, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.