Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but noted that there was no evidence of malafide intention on the Assessee's part. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay to ensure substantial justice, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited by the Assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and lacked relevant submissions. The issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act needed proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal inclined to remand the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to substantiate its appeal before the Commissioner despite opportunities. However, considering the peculiar facts and the need for substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on merits, with a direction for the Assessee to provide necessary documents.
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Act, holding that the assessee consistently filed returns and audit reports late without valid reasons. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not establish a 'reasonable cause' for the delay as required by Section 273B of the Act, and the case laws relied upon were distinguishable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's nonchalant attitude in not submitting documents on time. However, in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(E).
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Act, holding that the assessee consistently filed returns and audit reports late without valid reasons. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not establish a 'reasonable cause' for the delay as required by Section 273B of the Act, and the case laws relied upon were distinguishable.
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Act, holding that the assessee consistently filed returns and audit reports late without valid reasons. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not establish a 'reasonable cause' for the delay as required by Section 273B of the Act, and the case laws relied upon were distinguishable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's nonchalant attitude in not submitting documents timely. However, in the interest of justice and equity, it was deemed appropriate to provide the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal noted the conflicting reasons for the delay and the difference between the submissions made before the CIT(A) and the affidavit. Considering the grounds raised by the assessee and the Supreme Court's guidelines on condoning delays, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue for examination of the affidavit and to decide on merits, rather than on technical grounds of delay.
The assessee had sought a hearing through video conference as per CBDT Notification No.139/2021, but the CIT(A) passed the order without providing this opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration, adhering to the principles of natural justice and the said notification.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in filing the appeal. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal acknowledged the claim of non-receipt of notices and the AO's potentially unreasoned order. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity for the assessee to represent their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-appearance before the Commissioner was potentially due to significant delays in the case proceedings. The Commissioner had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient reason and referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. The Tribunal also decided to remit the issue back to the AO for de-novo consideration, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the details furnished by the assessee regarding cash deposits in its true spirit. Therefore, the Tribunal inclined to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the addition made under Section 68.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed its return belatedly and had an application for condonation of delay pending before the PCIT. Citing a previous order on similar facts, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed the return of income within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, which is a prerequisite for claiming deduction u/s. 80P, especially after the amendment to Section 80AC w.e.f. 01.04.2018. However, since the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) and it was pending, the Tribunal followed a precedent and restored the matter to the AO.
The tribunal noted the assessee's casual and irresponsible conduct in failing to comply with notices and provide documentation. While the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal, the tribunal considered the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution for a just decision.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure a just decision and for the ends of justice, as the issue was not adjudicated in its true spirit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was casual and did not demonstrate a reasonable cause as required by section 273B. The assessee's claim of not being conversant with e-communication was also rejected given their substantial turnover. The Tribunal found substance in the Revenue's submissions and confirmed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee lost the concept of mutuality due to different classes of members (regular and nominal/associate) who did not have equal rights, thus not eligible for 80P deduction on income from nominal/associate members. However, for income from regular members, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh consideration. The addition u/s 68 for demonetisation deposits was deleted, with a direction to the assessee to provide detailed information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 215 days, noting the reasonable cause presented. It was observed that the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders due to non-response from the assessee, although the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 215 days, noting the reasonable cause presented. It was observed that the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders due to non-response from the assessee, although the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposit before the AO and during appellate proceedings. Despite the assessee's negligent conduct, the Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the need for substantial justice, decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex parte due to the assessee's alleged non-response to hearing notices. However, the assessee claimed that hearing notices were not served on their primary email ID. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was casual and did not demonstrate a reasonable cause as required by section 273B. The assessee's claim of not being conversant with e-communication was also rejected given their substantial turnover. The Tribunal found substance in the Revenue's submissions and confirmed the penalty.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's lack of cooperation and failure to provide necessary documents, which prevented a proper adjudication of the Long Term Capital Gain issue. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the assessee lost the concept of mutuality due to different classes of members (regular and nominal/associate) who did not have equal rights, thus not eligible for 80P deduction on income from nominal/associate members. However, for income from regular members, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh consideration. The addition u/s 68 for demonetisation deposits was deleted, with a direction to the assessee to provide detailed information.
The Tribunal noted the assessee sought an adjournment for filing written submissions and, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee sought an adjournment for filing written submissions and, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee sought an adjournment for filing written submissions and, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made no compliance before the Commissioner despite opportunities. However, considering the contentious issue raised regarding the sustainability of the penalty, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file the return of income in response to notices and also failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed to have filed the return manually beyond the limitation period, but without producing proof. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte despite the assessee's uploaded submissions. Prima facie, there appeared to be a duplication of cash deposit addition under section 69A of the Act.
The Tribunal noted the assessee sought an adjournment for filing written submissions and, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. Accordingly, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, finding reasonable cause for the belated filing. While the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to provide one last opportunity to the assessee in the interest of justice and equity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee by restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. As there was no objection from the Department, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the absence of details/evidence from the Assessee and the limited time to respond to notices. Therefore, to ensure a just decision, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices issued by the CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not decide the appeal on merits. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and for the ends of justice, the Tribunal inclined to remand the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being imposed. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies between the assessment order and the penalty order regarding the grounds for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of proper approval under Section 151 of the Act. The approval communicated was not directly from the PCIT and lacked the necessary application of mind.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's death during proceedings and notices being sent to an inaccessible email ID might have led to the ex-parte order. In the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the 31-day delay in filing the appeal. It was held that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the assessment order remained un-adjudicated. For the sake of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal against the assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee.
The Corrigendum clarifies that the appeal number in the order dated 21.02.2024 was incorrectly typed as 832/Bang/2023 and should be read as 831/Bang/2023 for all purposes. This correction has been issued on 11.03.2024.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing documentary evidence supporting the lease transaction and the existence of assets. The AO's reliance on an untested statement from the lessee's MD, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, was deemed insufficient. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the depreciation allowance.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act cannot be treated as mandatory, but rather directory. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the provisions of the Act and Rules, and there is no condition in the DTAA for disallowing FTC due to non-compliance with procedural provisions.