ITAT Amritsar Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provisions for such levy were not in operation. The intimation for demanding fees under Section 200A for late fees was not valid if issued before June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings, with a warning against future defaults.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provisions for such levy were not in operation. The intimation for demanding fees under Section 200A for late fees was not valid if issued before June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's potential lapse but, considering the CIT(Exemptions) did not decide on merits, restored the issue. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to decide the application afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was inactive, unintentional lapses should not permanently close the doors of justice. The CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant before refusing registration, violating the principles of natural justice. The order was set aside due to this procedural lapse.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) passed the order without considering the merits and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not plead their case due to non-service of notice on their representative and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, a fresh opportunity should be granted. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, acknowledging the possibility of unintentional lapses and the turmoil in Jammu & Kashmir. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the order of the CIT(A) was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not heard properly.

The Tribunal, by majority view, held that the mistake of a counsel in not informing the assessee about the order constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Furthermore, if an appeal is adjudicated on merits, refusing to condone the delay is an error.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's substantial compliance and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration u/s 80G after the assessee submits the ledger copy. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a limited scrutiny as per CASS guidelines and that the assessee had provided all required documents and details. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not erroneous simply because the PCIT was not satisfied with the manner of verification, relying on judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) to decide the issue in accordance with law, considering the principle of natural justice. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to examine the documents already submitted and grant registration under Section 12AA and then proceed with the application under Section 80G.