Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 2 of 2
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on a technicality without proper consideration of the delay explanation or issuing a show cause notice. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on its merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without proper notice or consideration of the delay explanation. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect mention of the section number in Form 35 was a clerical and curable defect. The CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the mistake before dismissing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee firm failed to inform the bank and the Income Tax Department about its dissolution and the change in constitution. Consequently, the bank account remained in the firm's name, leading to potential issues in assessment and recovery. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was filing returns under Section 44AD, which presumes income and exempts from maintaining books of accounts, the assessee was not obligated to explain individual cash deposits if they had a nexus with disclosed gross receipts. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were out of disclosed sales and thus deleted the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed without deciding on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect and the delay, as it did not fall under any exceptions specified in the CBDT circulars. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services was noted but did not override the CBDT circulars regarding appeal filing limits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had sent notices to an incorrect email ID, leading to the assessee's non-appearance. The CIT(A) also failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that merely uploading notices on the ITBA portal does not constitute effective service as per Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. Principles of natural justice require effective communication and an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee deserved an adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) to present its case properly.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal and the revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the completed assessment was not valid because the reasons recorded by the AO were factually incorrect. The Department's plea of inadvertent mistake did not validate the flawed reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The application for admission of additional evidence was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the Income Tax portal does not constitute effective service. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the completed assessment was not valid because the reasons recorded by the AO were factually incorrect. The Department's plea of inadvertent mistake did not validate the flawed reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee deserved an adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) to present its case properly.