Loading ITAT cases…
107 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee had claims for unabsorbed business losses from AY 2017-18 and 2020-21, which appeared to be within the stipulated timeline. The Tribunal also noted the claim for unabsorbed depreciation and the issue of GST not deposited on time.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance at lower levels but acknowledging contentions regarding jurisdictional thresholds (u/s 149(1)(b)) and sources of funds (renewals of FDRs, inter-bank transfers), set aside both the quantum and penalty appeals. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to furnish all documentary evidence and cooperate.
Considering the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to produce the cash book and explain the source of cash deposits, the Tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide all grounds on merits after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal observed that a subsequent order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) under Section 245D(4) had covered all seized documents for the relevant assessment years and found no adverse inference after March 2020. Since the CIT(E) did not consider this ITSC order, which had material bearing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The application was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication, directing consideration of the ITSC settlement order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and for filing written submissions. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present all necessary documentary evidence.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity to submit the necessary evidence for the creditworthiness of the three remaining trustees. The assessee is directed to file all submissions and evidence and cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had validly exercised the option under section 115BAC(5) by filing Form 10IE on January 3, 2022, for AY 2021-22. As per the provisions, an option once exercised cannot be withdrawn and applies to all subsequent years, and the form was available on record. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Form 10IE for the assessment year under appeal and allow the benefit of the new tax regime.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance at lower levels but acknowledging contentions regarding jurisdictional thresholds (u/s 149(1)(b)) and sources of funds (renewals of FDRs, inter-bank transfers), set aside both the quantum and penalty appeals. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to furnish all documentary evidence and cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the 190-day delay, acknowledging the medical emergency of the consultant's daughter. It observed that the CIT(E) did not allow sufficient time or proper opportunity for compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, directing the assessee to file all necessary documentary evidence and for CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to discuss the certificates submitted by the assessee regarding his Scheduled Tribe status and business in Ladakh. As the authenticity of these documents and the claim for exemption under Section 10(26) needed verification, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the exemption claim allowed subject to verification.
The Tribunal, citing precedents, ruled that procedural deviations should not be fatal. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications on merits, allow rectification of technical mistakes in the application form or sub-clause, and grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the 80G(5) application, based on the ITO's and Inspector's reports, without confronting the assessee with these adverse reports, violated the principle of natural justice. The order was set aside and the matter remanded back to the CIT(E) with directions to provide the assessee with the reports and a fresh opportunity of being heard before deciding the matter again.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) failed to adequately consider certain affidavits and submissions from the assessee, particularly regarding compliance with legal requirements and the non-infringement of Section 2(1) (first proviso). Furthermore, the CIT(E)'s order did not discuss the validity of the assessee's registration under section 12A of the Act. To ensure proper opportunity and consideration of all facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly examine the assessee's submissions, books of accounts, and supporting documents. A significant discrepancy existed between cash sales and total cash deposits, which the assessee did not adequately explain. Therefore, the AO's order was set aside for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, citing precedents, ruled that procedural deviations should not be fatal. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications on merits, allow rectification of technical mistakes in the application form or sub-clause, and grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT condoned the 353-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting reasons like the father's serious illness and internet/curfew restrictions in Kashmir. It set aside the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A), restoring the matter to the AO for a *de novo* assessment. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and furnish all necessary documents and evidence.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting that a critical ground regarding limitation was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing and allow them to furnish all documents/evidences. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their latches in appearing before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without a proper hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the 89-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A), the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the case afresh on merits after allowing the assessee to submit all necessary documents and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of the confirmed addition.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period was adequately explained as it originated from accumulated savings regularly disclosed in wealth tax returns filed before the demonetization. Since the revenue could not provide evidence that the cash was utilized elsewhere, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) by following the precedent set in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee might not be liable for advance tax and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to admit the appeal, provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and dispose of the grounds on merits after verifying the documentary evidences regarding the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the assessee's submissions regarding the purchase ledger and bank ledger. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) by following the precedent set in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the first appellate authority acted judiciously and was empowered under the amended Section 251(1)(a) to set aside ex-parte assessments made u/s 144 for fresh assessment, ensuring reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the 771-day delay and then decide the appeal on its merits as per Section 282 read with Rule 127 of the I.T. Rules.
The Tribunal found sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning both the 10-day delay in filing and the delay in full payment of the appeal fee. Given that the CIT(A) order was non-speaking and passed ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the interest of natural justice and fair play.
The Tribunal observed that documentary evidence suggested the cash deposits belonged to the partnership firm, which is separately assessed. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to verify all documentary evidence and books of account to confirm if the cash deposits were sale proceeds of the partnership business and were fully explained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the first appellate authority acted judiciously and was empowered under the amended Section 251(1)(a) to set aside ex-parte assessments made u/s 144 for fresh assessment, ensuring reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 226-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's circumstances. Recognizing that the assessment and first appeal were conducted ex-parte, and to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their lapses in non-appearance, to be deposited to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the first appellate authority acted judiciously and was empowered under the amended Section 251(1)(a) to set aside ex-parte assessments made u/s 144 for fresh assessment, ensuring reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of the confirmed addition.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration of the trust was to be set aside and the matter restored to his file. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a show cause notice before the rejection. The assessee explained the delay in filing Form 10AB, citing hardships and troubles due to untimely services from the Registrar of Societies' office in registering amendments, and the subsequent need to obtain a new PAN after the Memorandum of Association was registered. The Tribunal considered the proviso to section 12A, introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone delays if there is a reasonable cause. Although this proviso was effective from October 1, 2024, the Tribunal was of the view that the legislative intent was to enable condonation of delays in suitable cases with reasonable cause. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to consider condoning the delay and decide the application on merits if satisfied with the reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the delay and decide the application afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the first appellate authority acted judiciously and was empowered under the amended Section 251(1)(a) to set aside ex-parte assessments made u/s 144 for fresh assessment, ensuring reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that issuing jurisdictional notices in the name of a deceased person renders the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid due to the issuance of notices to a dead person.
The Tribunal observed that CPC had largely accepted the returned income and that profit on sale of investments had been correctly offered and accepted under the head capital gains. Therefore, the adjustment of Rs.5.94 Lacs confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unwarranted. The tribunal deleted the adjustment sustained in the impugned order.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of cash deposits originating from small gifts and past personal savings to be plausible. Considering the assessee's background and income being below the taxable limit, the availability of these sources could not be ruled out. Consequently, the impugned addition of Rs. 3.52 Lacs was held to be not sustainable on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was based on a curable defect, and the CIT(E) should have guided the assessee to rectify the mistake. The provisional registration granted was to be treated as valid, and the application was to be considered as if made under the correct sub-clause.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities but noted that new submissions and additional evidence were filed, requiring factual verification. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documents, and a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed for the latches in appearing before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's claim of agricultural income as the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's bonafide belief that their previous counsel was handling the proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders at both assessment and first appellate stages. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary documents. A token cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligence in appearing before the CIT(A).
Acknowledging principles of natural justice, the Tribunal accepted the Ld. AR's prayer. The impugned rejection orders were set aside, and both applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits, with the assessee being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee duly furnished certificates from the concerned department and ledger extracts confirming that bricks were supplied in subsequent years against the payment. Consequently, finding no adverse material, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it non-intentional due to the assessee's family medical illness. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without admitting them for a merits hearing. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeals, conduct all necessary verification and enquiry including obtaining a report from the AO, and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to pay the admitted tax as per their own computation with interest within 30 days and to cooperate with the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed the submissions and evidence before the CIT(A), but they were not considered, possibly due to technical glitches, which amounts to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit all relied-upon evidence.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to conduct a de novo adjudication, requiring the assessee to present and substantiate its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it non-intentional due to the assessee's family medical illness. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without admitting them for a merits hearing. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeals, conduct all necessary verification and enquiry including obtaining a report from the AO, and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to pay the admitted tax as per their own computation with interest within 30 days and to cooperate with the appellate proceedings.