Loading ITAT cases…
107 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeals on merits and by dismissing them on the ground of limitation despite condoning the delay or having reasonable cause for delay. It remanded all three appeals (quantum and two penalty appeals) back to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence for purchases, including invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments. The mere non-compliance of notices by suppliers or their non-filing of IT returns does not automatically make the purchases bogus.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without proper service of notice to the assessee's email ID. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and to submit all necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to admit and consider the fresh evidences submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) is directed to obtain a verification report from the AO regarding these new documents and then adjudicate the matter afresh on merits. The Tribunal clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits or authenticity of the additional evidence at this stage.
The Tribunal found that the dates mentioned by the CIT(A) in his order did not match the records. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the factual aspects, provide the assessee an opportunity to explain any delay, and then admit and dispose of the appeal on its merits. The assessee was also directed to provide documentary evidence for cash deposits during demonetization.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission of a profit and loss account and computation showing a total income of Rs. 3,25,600 with tax payable of Rs. 3,250. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for admission of the appeal and decision on merits, directing the assessee to provide all documentary evidence, cooperate, and pay the admitted tax of Rs. 3,250 with interest. A reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee.
The tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for a proper opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits through maintained books. Accepting this, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of all submissions and evidence, emphasizing that the assessee must be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that denying an opportunity to explain the delay was against the principles of justice. It remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority, directing it to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the more than three-year delay and demonstrate "sufficient cause" for admission of the appeal.
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 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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the medical reasons and consultant's error. Recognizing that the assessee had furnished additional documentary evidence like bank statements and ledgers, it set aside the assessment and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposit had not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing proper verification and enquiry into all documentary evidences, while granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was directed for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A), with the assessee instructed to present and prove its case forthwith.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had already deposited Rs. 2.67 lakhs, which was sufficient to cover the admitted tax requirement under section 249(4)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate it on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
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.
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 held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeals on merits and by dismissing them on the ground of limitation despite condoning the delay or having reasonable cause for delay. It remanded all three appeals (quantum and two penalty appeals) back to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had historically shown book profits of less than 2% and that a previous assessment under section 143(3) accepted the returned income. Therefore, it directed the AO to estimate the net income at 2% of the total turnover and re-compute the assessee's income accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) had already condoned the delay in filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to re-compute the assessee's income, allowing the deduction after verifying the conditions stipulated in the condonation order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence for purchases, including invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments. The mere non-compliance of notices by suppliers or their non-filing of IT returns does not automatically make the purchases bogus.
The tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored both applications to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the applications on their merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present its case.
Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was directed for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A), with the assessee instructed to present and prove its case forthwith.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment for both assessment years. The assessee is now required to plead and prove its case regarding the source of deposits forthwith.
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 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 dismissed both the quantum and penalty appeals filed by the revenue as non-maintainable. This decision was based on the net tax liability being below the Rs. 60 Lacs threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, indicating a low tax effect. The revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if a higher tax effect or an exception was found.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's charitable status and potential for exempt income, held that the first appeal should have been admitted. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and adjudicate the case on its merits.
The Tribunal found that, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It directed the assessee to file all necessary documentary evidence to explain the source of cash deposits and to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed both the quantum and penalty appeals filed by the revenue as non-maintainable. This decision was based on the net tax liability being below the Rs. 60 Lacs threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, indicating a low tax effect. The revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if a higher tax effect or an exception was found.
The Tribunal found that the Rs. 2 lakhs advance made to Mr. Parveen Kumar Sharma was duly recorded in the assessee's regular books of account, including the cash book and reflected in the balance sheet as an 'Imprest A/c' under loans & advances. The source of the payment was satisfactorily explained as coming from the regular books of accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made under Section 69A was not in accordance with the law and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee offered the additional income in the return and paid taxes, and the returned income was accepted with only a minor addition, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty was not attracted.
The ITAT found the assessee's explanation for the 143-day delay in filing the appeal to be reasonable and bona fide, thus condoning the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with directions to admit the appeal and decide it on its merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of penalties, holding that once the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties under section 271(1)(c), had been deleted by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court, the consequential penalties could not legally survive. Therefore, both appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 78-day delay by the assessee. It restored both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of enhancing the assessment in rectification proceedings without a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the issue of whether the subsidy is capital or revenue is debatable and not rectifiable under Section 154.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime, set aside the impugned order. It directed the Ld. Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh assessment, instructing the assessee to present and prove their case without delay.
The Tribunal, invoking the principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh (de novo) adjudication. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case forthwith before the CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the 58-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it not willful. Recognizing that the fresh evidence provided by the assessee was not presented before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), and ex-parte orders were passed at both stages, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to examine the fresh evidence and pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without the Tribunal expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to file all documentary evidences and submissions to explain the source of cash deposits and cooperate in the appellate proceedings.
Following Supreme Court principles, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to present their case forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's primary contention regarding denial of proper opportunity of hearing. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire matter back to the CIT(A). This provides the assessee one more opportunity to explain the source and nature of the cash deposits with documentary evidence. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing an opinion on the merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 78-day delay by the assessee. It restored both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the Ld. AR for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The order was pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
The tribunal noted that both the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte, with the CIT(A) providing insufficient time for response. Considering the assessee's medical condition and the lack of proper opportunity, the tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a fair chance to present his case with documentary evidence.
Following Supreme Court principles, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to present their case forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation as a reasonable cause, noting that a similar penalty for AY 2015-16 was dropped by the AO based on the principle that default must be willful and not accidental (citing Smt. Vijayanthimala). Applying the rule of consistency and finding similar facts, the Tribunal concluded that the default was not willful and, thus, deleted the impugned penalty.