Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 4 of 4
The CIT(A) had deleted the additions made by the AO, considering the amount received from Last Hour Ministry was offered to tax. However, the CIT(A) failed to address the AO's reasoning that there was no nexus between the receipts and the income offered to tax, and the assessee failed to provide evidence for the same.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12A by the CIT(E) was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received the show cause notice via email, and thus could not provide an explanation for the delay. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that an opportunity of hearing was not adequately provided. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to appear before the CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(E) rejected the application in Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to furnish an explanation to the show cause notice. The assessee's A.R. submitted that the rejection occurred because the assessee did not receive the notice via email and requested a remand for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, was of the opinion that the assessee should be provided with another opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Learned CIT(E) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to appear before the Learned CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at a total income of Rs. 3,37,75,946/-, assessing the income from the land sale on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee and on a substantive basis in the hands of Shri T.G. Chandrakumar. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the cost of acquisition at Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the delay was due to the trustee's health issues and illness, supported by a medical certificate. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh hearing on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient documentary evidence to prove that Kerala Bank qualifies as a Co-operative society for Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal decided to remand the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain this eligibility.
The Tribunal held that interest income received from co-operative banks, scheduled banks, and other financial institutions qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's illness was a sufficient cause for the belated filing of the appeal. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to hear the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The penalty imposed u/s 270B was deleted due to sufficient cause for the delayed audit report. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision after the quantum appeal is disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without proper examination of evidence or discussion of the transaction's nature. The Tribunal noted that the AO's invocation of a wrong section does not preclude confirming the addition under a correct one and decided to remit the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also did not sufficiently discuss the evidence produced before him.