Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the original assessee and her legal heir's circumstances. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry and analysis regarding the FDRs. The Tribunal held that the assessee has an explainable source for the deposits and no addition was called for.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the delay was not deliberate and a justice-oriented approach should be adopted. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 62 days in filing ITA No. 15/CHD/2024. The Tribunal noted that the expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be interpreted liberally, citing Supreme Court judgments in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy. The delay was attributed to a bona fide lapse by the Assessing Officer who failed to notice a subsequent Board's Circular (Misc. letter dated 16.09.2019) which provided that the tax effect circular would not be applicable in cases of penny stock. This was not a deliberate attempt to delay litigation. Regarding the additions under Section 153A, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions can be made in respect of completed assessments. The Tribunal agreed with the views of the Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla and the Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction. The search conducted on 25.04.2018 did not yield incriminating material demonstrating the alleged transactions as bogus. The Assessing Officer relied on portal information without cross-verification. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the need for substantial justice. However, it dismissed the Revenue's appeals, agreeing with the lower appellate authority that no additions could be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that once the company is dissolved, the appeals filed by the assessee would not survive. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly explained the source of the deposit and the reason for not utilizing the loan amount for the intended business. There was no evidence of any other business transaction or utilization of the loan amount, justifying the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions about his income being below the taxable limit. The assessment order was ex-parte, and an opportunity for a fresh hearing was required.
The Tribunal held that once the company is dissolved, the appeals filed by the assessee would not survive. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that once the company is dissolved, the appeals filed by the assessee would not survive. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that once the company is dissolved, the appeals filed by the assessee would not survive. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme benefit is unsuccessful.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the bank account operations and the evidence presented. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed that further inquiry was necessary to ascertain the true owner of the bank account and the nature of the transactions.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the cash deposits were explained by the sale of agricultural land and subsequent investments, entitling the assessee to deductions under Section 54B. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was bad in law and quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked proper grounds for invoking Section 147/148.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were proportionate to the assessee's sales, considering the sales figures of the preceding and current assessment years, including the demonetization period. Therefore, the addition was not justified.