Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to comply with the CIT(A)'s requests for information and payment. To ensure natural justice and a proper opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted another opportunity to present their case, provided they do not misuse it and comply with future notices.
The tribunal, following a Bombay High Court judgment, ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice manually, as it ought to have been issued in a faceless manner consistent with Section 144B and the e-Assessment Scheme. Consequently, both the notice and the resulting assessment order were declared invalid.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal, acknowledging that the registration under section 12A had since been granted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice due to non-service of physical notice. The order was set aside, and the issues were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the audit report was prepared well before the due date for Form 10B filing, and the assessee provided a reasonable cause for the delay in e-filing. Citing precedents, the ITAT held that the non-filing of the audit report along with the return of income is a procedural omission. Therefore, the ITAT allowed the appeal and directed the CIT(E) to consider the Form 10B on merits and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities' order was ex-parte and that the assessment figures did not match the bank statement provided by the assessee. Finding that the AO failed to verify correct deposit figures and noting a violation of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Authority for a fresh assessment.
The ITAT condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause based on the assessee's affidavit. It ruled that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, as dismissal purely for non-prosecution is contrary to well-settled law. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer, even in remand proceedings, failed to identify any inconsistencies in the documents provided by the assessee and did not conduct independent inquiries such as issuing summons or notices under Sections 133(6) or 131. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO were based on 'whims and surmises' rather than concrete evidence, especially considering the lender for AY 2016-17 was assessed by the same AO. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, additions under Section 153A could not be sustained. The AO's reliance on external investigation reports and inferences, without specific incriminating evidence from the search, was deemed insufficient.
The tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply promptly with notices from the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer, even in remand proceedings, failed to identify any inconsistencies in the documents provided by the assessee and did not conduct independent inquiries such as issuing summons or notices under Sections 133(6) or 131. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO were based on 'whims and surmises' rather than concrete evidence, especially considering the lender for AY 2016-17 was assessed by the same AO. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits and bank transactions, submitted to the AO, was not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after verifying the assessee's explanation and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, additions under Section 153A could not be sustained. The AO's reliance on external investigation reports and inferences, without specific incriminating evidence from the search, was deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the FAA's order was unsustainable in law as it failed to adjudicate the factual question of proper service of notices under section 142(1). It ruled that the assessee was prejudiced by not being given an opportunity to contest the addition on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication of the grounds on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked as there was no doubt regarding the movement of goods or corresponding purchases. The Tribunal also found the CIT(Appeals)'s calculation of a different profit margin to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo). This decision was based on the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal in limine without going into merits and the need for the AO to verify the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowing it for statistical purposes. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC was directed to serve fresh notices to the assessee at the provided email addresses.
The Tribunal observed that the property was originally acquired by the assessee's father-in-law and the sale deed was executed by her husband in her name to perfect the title, not as a genuine sale transaction with consideration. It emphasized that tax authorities should not conclusively presume payment merely from sale deed recitals, especially when affidavits confirm no money exchanged hands and the assessee had no income. The CIT(A) erred by not appreciating these facts and documents, making the addition of Rs. 70,30,040/- unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) erred by not entering into the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the NFAC to reconsider the appeal on merits, providing due opportunity of hearing and considering relevant legal provisions.
The Tribunal held that for electronic submissions, a day extends until midnight, not just office hours, and NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal prematurely on the due date. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC order and directed NFAC to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering all submissions and evidence filed.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's default, acknowledging his humble background and consistent claim of non-receipt of the notice. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The ITAT found that the NFAC was not justified in deciding the appeal ex parte. Sustaining the assessee's grounds, the ITAT set aside the assessment and restored the issues of merits and law to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material is found during a search on a third party and relates to the assessee, assessment proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Special provisions for search cases override general assessment provisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked as there was no doubt regarding the movement of goods or corresponding purchases. The Tribunal also found the CIT(Appeals)'s calculation of a different profit margin to be unsustainable.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to undertake factual appreciation or render conclusive findings on questions of facts and law, having dismissed the appeal in default. Therefore, to ensure justice, the tribunal restored all issues on merits and points of law to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground concerning the show cause notice. It held that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on conjectures, as he had accepted the assessee's books of accounts and cash sales without contrary material. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram, the Tribunal found the addition not legally permissible and the CIT(A)'s sustenance of it erroneous. The grounds challenging the addition were allowed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and denied the assessee adequate opportunity to present its case. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to explain the source of the deposits.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to undertake factual appreciation or render conclusive findings on questions of facts and law, having dismissed the appeal in default. Therefore, to ensure justice, the tribunal restored all issues on merits and points of law to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to undertake factual appreciation or render conclusive findings on questions of facts and law, having dismissed the appeal in default. Therefore, to ensure justice, the tribunal restored all issues on merits and points of law to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to undertake factual appreciation or render conclusive findings on questions of facts and law, having dismissed the appeal in default. Therefore, to ensure justice, the tribunal restored all issues on merits and points of law to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to grant indexation benefit from the date of the allotment letter (17.01.2008), relying on CBDT Circular No. 471 and Delhi High Court judgments. For the cost of acquisition, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's method of separately accounting for land parcels. However, the issues concerning the cost of improvement and the disallowance under section 37(1) were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh investigation, as supporting evidence and a thorough examination of business commencement were found to be lacking.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that a subsequent CBDT Circular No. 07/2024, dated April 25, 2024, had extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB to June 30, 2024. In light of this, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh determination of the application's maintainability, allowing the assessee to furnish further explanation and evidence.
The ITAT deemed the NFAC's dismissal order unsustainable due to the absence of proof of proper notice issuance and service. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the NFAC's order and instructed the NFAC to issue fresh notices to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh according to law.
The Tribunal held that once the underlying assessment, which formed the basis for the penalty under section 271(1)(c), has been settled under the VSVS and Form 5 has been issued, there is no legal ground remaining to levy the penalty. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as all issues raised were already examined by the AO. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and did not conduct any independent enquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the sole reason for denial was the alleged non-submission of documents related to bhusa purchases. Without commenting on the merits, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the applications to the CIT (Exemptions) for a de novo consideration, requiring the assessee to furnish all relevant documents.
The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the documentary evidence presented by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the matter afresh, verify the documentary evidence, and provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard before deciding the case on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed ITA No.892/DEL/2024 as withdrawn. For ITA No.821/DEL/2024, finding that the CIT(A) had not decided the Section 69 addition on merits, the Tribunal directed a remand to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing and decide the matter according to law.
The tribunal condoned the entire 704-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), relying on the Supreme Court's ratio for the Covid period and finding reasonable grounds for the remaining 90 days. Observing that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits for AY 2018-19 and that both years had common issues, the tribunal remitted both appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider all documentary evidence, provide a hearing opportunity, and decide the matters on merit as per law for both assessment years.
The tribunal condoned the entire 704-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), relying on the Supreme Court's ratio for the Covid period and finding reasonable grounds for the remaining 90 days. Observing that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits for AY 2018-19 and that both years had common issues, the tribunal remitted both appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider all documentary evidence, provide a hearing opportunity, and decide the matters on merit as per law for both assessment years.
The Tribunal dismissed ITA No.892/DEL/2024 as withdrawn. For ITA No.821/DEL/2024, finding that the CIT(A) had not decided the Section 69 addition on merits, the Tribunal directed a remand to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing and decide the matter according to law.
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, it remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard, consider documentary evidence, and decide the issue on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted that the sole reason for denial was the alleged non-submission of documents related to bhusa purchases. Without commenting on the merits, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the applications to the CIT (Exemptions) for a de novo consideration, requiring the assessee to furnish all relevant documents.
The Tribunal rectified its earlier order, directing that the Assessment Year 2015-16, erroneously mentioned in the cause title and paragraph 2, be read as the correct Assessment Year 2014-15. This correction applies to the original Tribunal order dated 31.08.2022 for ITA No.2676/Del/2019.
The Tribunal held that the business was temporarily suspended due to a pending dispute, not discontinued. Maintaining the plant and infrastructure for potential resumption of operations justified the claim for revenue expenditure and depreciation.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS can only be granted in the assessment year in which the corresponding income is assessed to tax. The assessee was directed to approach the AO for claiming TDS credit in the concerned year.
The tribunal held that assessment orders passed against a non-existing company are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they suffer from jurisdictional error. Relying on a Coordinate Bench's precedent, the tribunal declared the assessment orders void and quashed the entire assessment proceedings against the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the show cause notices and the PCIT's order invoking Section 12AB(4) were erroneous and bad in law. The Tribunal noted that Section 12AA could not be applied to orders after April 1, 2021, and Section 12AB(4) was not in effect for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to provide specific findings regarding the assessee's submission of bank statements and account copies, which purportedly detailed the source of funds for the unsecured loans. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and a speaking order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal noted that the AO could have verified the nature of the land himself. It set aside the lower authorities' orders, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh assessment to verify the assessee's claim and afford adequate opportunity of being heard, in the interest of natural justice.