Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 14 of 14
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was completed ex-parte without adequate opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence supporting genuine share transactions, including purchase and sale through recognized stock exchanges with payment of STT. The Tribunal also noted that the statement of the broker was not subjected to cross-examination by the assessee.
The Tribunal, noting the non-appearance and undelivered notices, inferred the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the vouchers for the loading and unloading expenses were unnumbered, self-made, lacked complete details of the persons involved, and did not mention site or vehicle numbers. The assessee failed to substantiate the expenses as required under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 20 lakhs, and according to CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, such appeals should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the departmental appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence supporting genuine share transactions, including purchase and sale through recognized stock exchanges with payment of STT. The Tribunal also noted that the statement of the broker was not subjected to cross-examination by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the investor company did not exist was based on an inspector's report. The assessee had provided documentation to support the share capital transaction.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to bring any material on record to show that the purchase rates were not comparable to market value or that there was any arrangement to evade taxes. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had accepted similar transactions in the proprietary concern's assessment and in the assessee's subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's representative could not properly represent the case and failed to file relevant documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for reconsideration after allowing the assessee to submit the required documents and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 mandates not pressing or withdrawing appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.