Loading ITAT cases…
182 tribunal orders from the Allahabad bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 182 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271B. The Tribunal noted that the AO himself had observed that the assessee had not maintained books of account and had initiated separate penalty proceedings under Section 271A for this non-compliance. The Tribunal reasoned that the infraction of Section 44AB, which necessitates a tax audit, is attracted only when the assessee maintains books of accounts but fails to get them audited. If books of accounts are not maintained, the question of conducting an audit does not arise. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B is not attracted in such a scenario. The Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2007) 165 Taxman 1 (Allahabad), which held that Section 271B is not attracted when books of account have not been maintained. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in CIT vs. S. K. Gupta & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) which supported the assessee's view. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty levied under Section 271B was unsustainable in law and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions convincing, particularly regarding additions made without incriminating material or based on 'dumb documents'. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned a 292-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's past non-compliance but decided to provide another opportunity in the interest of substantial justice. The case was restored to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for a fresh hearing on merits, with a warning to the assessee to ensure full compliance.
The Tribunal, after considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay and the precedents from the Supreme Court, found that the assessee failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay of 824 days. The reasons provided were vague, uncorroborated, and showed a lack of bona fide, diligence, and vigilance on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself on the ground of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D suffered from multiple infirmities, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions convincing, particularly regarding additions made without incriminating material or based on 'dumb documents'. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned a significant delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's illiteracy and lack of computer literacy. It found that the NFAC had passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present her case and produce evidence for the bank deposits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to submit evidence for the indexed cost of acquisition and the source of cash deposits. Granting one more opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a chance to explain the cash deposits with evidence and justify the indexed cost, failing which the AO can pass an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It decided to restore the case to the Assessing Officer, directing them to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Consequently, it set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) and restored the file to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a caution to the assessee for full compliance.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D suffered from multiple infirmities, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions convincing, particularly regarding additions made without incriminating material or based on 'dumb documents'. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored both appeals to the NFAC, directing it to hear the cases on merits. The ITAT granted this opportunity due to the assessee's counsel's serious illness and subsequent death, which prevented proper representation before the NFAC.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions convincing, particularly regarding additions made without incriminating material or based on 'dumb documents'. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D suffered from multiple infirmities, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee one more opportunity to explain the source of the credit entries in his bank account, with a caution that non-compliance would allow the AO to proceed ex-parte.
The Tribunal recognized that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the source of cash deposits and credit entries after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions convincing, particularly regarding additions made without incriminating material or based on 'dumb documents'. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D suffered from multiple infirmities, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored both appeals to the NFAC, directing it to hear the cases on merits. The ITAT granted this opportunity due to the assessee's counsel's serious illness and subsequent death, which prevented proper representation before the NFAC.
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte, and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a de novo order, directing the CIT(A) to ensure a reasonable opportunity is provided to the assessee.
The ITAT noted that the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and summarily dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT noted that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A), considering the claim of bona fide belief. In the interest of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue of the Rs.1,65,55,042/- addition back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that while the Range Head's approval was not granted mechanically, the approvals were not obtained for each assessment year and each assessee as required. Consequently, the assessment orders under section 153A were defective. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for obtaining fresh approvals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as income had escaped assessment. While upholding the addition of excess receipts over payments, it directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses.