Loading ITAT cases…
636 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 636 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, justice-oriented approach for condoning delays. Technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, especially when the delay is not deliberate.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered all issues on merits and had not followed the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the facts and circumstances and the interest of justice. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted reconciliation of amounts and deducted TDS where applicable. The Tribunal inclined to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have sufficient evidence which was not considered by the CIT(A). To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay plausible and not false. Considering the principles of natural justice and the taxpayer's contribution, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity to represent the case on merits before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for the assessee to represent their case, but the assessee failed to comply with most notices. Despite this, the order was passed considering some details. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue and restore it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with notices.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but they were not complied with. However, considering the assessee's prayer to restore the matter and cooperate, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for delay were plausible and bonafide, constituting a reasonable cause. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay to provide substantial justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording reasonable opportunity. The assessee claims to have reconciliation for interest paid and TDS deducted. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not deliberate and condoned the delay of more than 9 months. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits, including the consequential penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for delay were plausible and bonafide, constituting a reasonable cause. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay to provide substantial justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of over 9 months, emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach for condoning delays, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. It held that the CIT(A) was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence and directed the CIT(A) to readjudicate the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 and the consequential penalty u/s 270A on merits.
The tribunal noted that no condonation petition was filed explaining the delay in filing the appeal and multiple opportunities were given to the assessee. The tribunal set aside the order of the Id JCIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the Id JCIT(A) with directions.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the reopening of assessment (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the AO had blindly followed the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report without independent verification and without considering the Supreme Court's observations in the Goa Foundation case, which had discredited the report for violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening was a nullity and bad in law was upheld. Consequently, the addition made on account of suppressed production was also set aside. Regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 37 (Issue 2), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had not been penalized by any statutory authority for any violation of mining or environmental laws, and the payments made were for genuine business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case and in the case of ACIT Vs. Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik. Since the quantum appeals were dismissed, the penalty appeals were rendered infructuous and also dismissed. The operative direction was the deletion of the disallowance and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the reopening of assessment (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the AO had blindly followed the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report without independent verification and without considering the Supreme Court's observations in the Goa Foundation case, which had discredited the report for violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening was a nullity and bad in law was upheld. Consequently, the addition made on account of suppressed production was also set aside. Regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 37 (Issue 2), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had not been penalized by any statutory authority for any violation of mining or environmental laws, and the payments made were for genuine business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case and in the case of ACIT Vs. Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik. Since the quantum appeals were dismissed, the penalty appeals were rendered infructuous and also dismissed. The operative direction was the deletion of the disallowance and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the reopening of assessment (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the AO had blindly followed the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report without independent verification and without considering the Supreme Court's observations in the Goa Foundation case, which had discredited the report for violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening was a nullity and bad in law was upheld. Consequently, the addition made on account of suppressed production was also set aside. Regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 37 (Issue 2), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had not been penalized by any statutory authority for any violation of mining or environmental laws, and the payments made were for genuine business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case and in the case of ACIT Vs. Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik. Since the quantum appeals were dismissed, the penalty appeals were rendered infructuous and also dismissed. The operative direction was the deletion of the disallowance and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the reopening of assessment (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the AO had blindly followed the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report without independent verification and without considering the Supreme Court's observations in the Goa Foundation case, which had discredited the report for violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening was a nullity and bad in law was upheld. Consequently, the addition made on account of suppressed production was also set aside. Regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 37 (Issue 2), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had not been penalized by any statutory authority for any violation of mining or environmental laws, and the payments made were for genuine business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case and in the case of ACIT Vs. Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik. Since the quantum appeals were dismissed, the penalty appeals were rendered infructuous and also dismissed. The operative direction was the deletion of the disallowance and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding the reasons sufficient. The appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days, granted the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, and restored the issues to the AO for adjudication.
The tribunal noted that no notice was served on the assessee and they were not heard, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Pr.CIT for readjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not heard on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 182 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. Considering the assessee's status as a small-time trader, the Tribunal reduced the estimated net income from 5% to 2%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, relying on a precedent from a coordinate bench and a P&H High Court decision which held that the audit report under section 12A(1)(b) could be filed at the appellate stage and such delay was a 'venial breach'. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for re-computation of income after considering the belatedly filed Form 10B.
The assessee's representative requested that the issues be restored to the AO's file for readjudication, allowing the assessee to produce all details. The CIT DR did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that although notices were served and status showed 'Delivered', the assessee did not respond. However, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee and the lack of objection from the Revenue. It was held that since the quantum appeal is pending, the penalty appeal should be adjudicated along with it.
The tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant documents and failed to produce evidence required by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. To provide justice, the issues were restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal noted that the mandatory requirement for a merchant banker's valuation came into effect later than the impugned assessment year. It was held that the DCF method, used by a qualified chartered accountant, was an acceptable method and the rejection of the assessee's valuation by the lower authorities was not based on proper examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide relevant documents and evidence to substantiate its claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.