Loading ITAT cases…
306 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the source of cash, accepted during the search and offered as profit, should have been accepted by the authorities. The addition made under Section 69A and taxed under Section 115BBE was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the addition of Rs. 22,89,925/- back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The deletion of Rs. 4,84,075/- by the CIT(A) was confirmed as the revenue was not in appeal.
The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee was unaware of the assessment order due to change of address. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in depositing the SBNs was due to the rush in banks and that the assessee had sufficient cash on hand before demonetization. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 23,08,000 was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the return of income, noting that the delay in filing the return was due to the delayed completion of statutory audit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law by not considering the additional evidence. The ex-parte assessment order was also deemed vitiated due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 269SS, which exempts transactions between parties with only agricultural income, was applicable. Therefore, the penalty levied was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 40,52,057 back to the AO for limited verification of the assessee's reconciliation and explanation. If the assessee proves the nature and source, no addition will be required; otherwise, the AO can proceed as per law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record his satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the assessment order, which is a prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty levied is bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's explanations and supporting documents regarding the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid and legally untenable because they did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid and legally untenable because they did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that due to the peculiar facts, including the death of the auditor and the long delay in initiating penalty proceedings, the assessee was given the benefit of doubt. The penalty under Section 271B was deemed inappropriate in this case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings on March 22, 2021, and was required to pass the order by September 30, 2021, but passed it on March 21, 2022.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not have been denied the benefit of Section 115BAA due to a mistake in filling the ITR-6. Considering that the CPC later rectified its order and granted the benefit, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the matter to be reconsidered. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid and legally untenable because they did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) to be bonafide due to not checking emails. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation of her mother's terminal illness. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the reasons for the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the abnormal delay of 443 days to be insufficient. Consequently, the delay condonation petition was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal has issued a corrigendum to correct the name of the assessee's representative counsel. The name of the representative Counsel for the assessee should now be read as Shri S. Kumarasubramanian (Advocate).
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the return filed under Section 153A should be accepted as the regular revised return was treated as invalid. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal deleted the addition for cash by accepting the firm's cash book and deleted the addition for jewellery by applying the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the return filed under Section 153A should be accepted as the regular return was invalid. It also held that no under-reporting of income occurred as the assessed income matched the returned income. The addition for AY 2019-20 was deleted as the agreement was unsigned and no evidence of cash payment was found.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order deficient as it did not adjudicate all the grounds. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate all issues afresh.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were partially explained by prior withdrawals, supported by a cash flow statement. However, the explanation regarding foreign currency was not accepted.
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance only on old investments and not on new investments made at the fag-end of the financial year, as no dividend was earned on the new investment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. This is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide substantiation for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the timeline for filing such applications to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the rejection based on the timeline was set aside.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. This is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited by the assessee.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity based on natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to bring the legal heir on record and adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected on mere technical grounds. The wrong selection of a clause could be an inadvertent error, especially with the new registration regime. The assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the mistake.
The Tribunal held that the time limit for filing such applications was extended by CBDT Circular No.07/24 to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the rejection on grounds of timeline was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the rejection on a technical ground was not appropriate. The assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the error in selecting the clause.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity to substantiate the case based on the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional on a cost deposit and requires the assessee to present their case effectively.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed a duplicate. As an order had already been passed in the other related appeal, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 2,000/- and will result in a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on principles of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days.
The ITAT, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for the assessee to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made to the trust deed were minor and did not alter the substance or spirit of the original objects. Therefore, re-registration was not required, and the CIT's action was not justified.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the return filed under Section 153A should be accepted as the regular revised return was treated as invalid. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal deleted the addition for cash by accepting the firm's cash book and deleted the addition for jewellery by applying the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing on principles of natural justice. This is subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000 to be deposited by the assessee, after which the CIT(A) will conduct a de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected on mere technical grounds. The wrong selection of the clause was due to an inadvertent error, and the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify it.