Loading ITAT cases…
127 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided an affidavit and furnished books of accounts. The CIT(A) verified the books and found that deposits were out of sale proceeds and from debtors, appearing to be in the regular course of business.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found the assessee's explanation for non-representation to be plausible. Citing Section 273B of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities, which is against natural justice. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B one month prior to the due date of filing the return of income is not a mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption even if the report is filed at a later stage.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee claims all payments were made within the due date. For verification, the issues are restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to ascertain if payments were made within the due date and any extended time under the relevant Acts.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B one month before the due date of the return is not a mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12. Even if filed at a later stage, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption. The intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act stands quashed.
The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that while the Id.CIT(A) acknowledged the reasons for delay, the order was not passed on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. The JCIT approved a large number of assessment orders for multiple assessment years within a very short period, including holidays. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer sent only the assessment records, not the search materials, to the JCIT for approval. This prevented the JCIT from properly considering the relevant information and documents, which is a mandatory requirement for approving assessment orders in search cases. The Tribunal held that this procedural lapse rendered the assessment orders bad in law. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on this ground, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment orders after obtaining proper approval under section 153D. The issue regarding the additions made to the income was not decided on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) has the power to condone delays. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the registration and adjudication under condonation of delay, provided the assessee files the necessary application.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the application for permanent registration before the expiry of six months from the date of expiry of their provisional registration, which was considered to be within the time limit. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was granted on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the application for permanent registration before the expiry of six months from the date of expiry of their provisional registration, which was considered to be within the time limit. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring the filing of a regular return for 80P deduction, came into effect from 01.04.2018 and thus did not apply to the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim before lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the Income Tax Bar Association.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision to shift income heads in an electronically filed return. The intimation issued under section 143(1) by the CPC, which shifted the heads of income from business to house property, is not permissible and liable to be struck down.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 35 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was dismissed for delay. Considering the assessee's claim of not receiving notice and the request for another opportunity, the Tribunal granted a chance to present evidence before the AO.
The tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT was mechanical and without application of mind, as evidenced by the use of a generic 'Yes' without providing any reasons or indicating satisfaction based on objective material. This precedent was established by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring the filing of a regular return for 80P deduction, came into effect from 01.04.2018 and thus did not apply to the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction.
Since the quantum assessment order was quashed by the Tribunal, the consequential penalty proceedings also fail. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) stands deleted.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A) and, considering the AR's request for another opportunity, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to be diligent and file necessary submissions.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-response to notices. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity for hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 495 days, stating that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay was substantial but noted the assessee's charitable nature and the mistake made by the Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal decided that penalizing the assessee for the accountant's error would be unjust.
The Tribunal has not yet delivered its final decision as the provided text is only the beginning of the order. The core issue revolves around the inclusion of funds from a joint bank account.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is given another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 198 days, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to furnish all requisite documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition due to non-response from the assessee. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect of not uploading Form 35 was unjust. The assessee had acknowledged filing Form 35 with the CIT(A)'s office. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 94 days, finding reasonable cause for the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay was substantial but noted the assessee's charitable nature and the mistake made by the Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal decided that penalizing the assessee for the accountant's error would be unjust.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 333 days, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's failure to file the appeal within time. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adequate opportunity of hearing and directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, after considering the condonation petitions and the reasons provided by the assessee, was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 174 days in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to provide another opportunity of hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to meet the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal acknowledged the statutory right to appeal and the conditions under which delays can be condoned, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause and considering bona fides and due diligence. Despite the delay, the Tribunal condoned it, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be substantial enough to advance justice.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant trust could not place relevant documents before the CIT(E) to prove the bonafides of its charitable activities. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of representation. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal, finding merit in the assessee's argument and aiming to uphold the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the 233-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the tax consultant's negligence and has a statutory right to appeal on merits as per Section 250(6). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reason for the delay (severe health condition) and decided to grant one more opportunity for hearing, subject to the assessee cooperating with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices to substantiate their claim before the AO and CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of additions. Although the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging sufficient cause for the late filing. The appeal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, providing one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal, after considering the condonation petitions and the reasons provided by the assessee, was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 174 days in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal, after considering the condonation petitions and the reasons provided by the assessee, was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 174 days in filing the appeals.