Loading ITAT cases…
111 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order to prevent miscarriage of justice. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to present its case and file additional evidence before the AO.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty on 'Cess' deduction as the assessee withdrew the claim before the AO due to a bonafide belief. The issue of penalty on disallowed donations was remitted to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271AAB was void ab initio because the show cause notice issued by the AO was vague and did not specify the exact default under clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 271AAB. The penalty proceedings must be initiated with a clear and specific notice.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, were not applicable for the Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, the cancellation of registration under this provision for AY 2021-22 was invalid.
The Tribunal addressed the grounds raised by the assessee. Regarding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the jurisdiction of the issuing officer, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's PAN had moved to the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 7(2)(1), and the notice was generated by the officer who had jurisdiction over the PAN. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly held that the notice was validly issued, and the precedents cited by the assessee did not apply as the notice was served by the AO. On the issue of dilatory tactics and service of notices, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the chronology of events and the conduct of the assessee, and the notices were served in accordance with the law. Regarding the valuation of land, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had upheld the AO's valuation based on guidance value, and the assessee had not produced a valuation report. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this aspect. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide the issue concerning the cost of construction, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The appeal was then remanded to the AO for de novo consideration due to a cryptic order from the CIT(A) and lack of detailed adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable for short deduction of TDS, but only for non-deduction or non-remittance. For non-deduction or non-remittance, it should be examined if the recipient has paid tax. Depreciation on assets not in use is not allowable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause and no malafide intention on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal further remanded the issue to the AO for de novo consideration, directing a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, were not applicable for the Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, the cancellation of registration under this provision for AY 2021-22 was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the assessee had not disclosed full and true material facts necessary for the assessment. The original assessment had considered all the relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide after the application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income is disposed of. This decision was based on a similar precedent where the AO was directed to take a decision post-condonation.