ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued. The impugned orders were set aside.

Following a precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons bonafide as service of notices was not evident from the record. It restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration of the Section 12A application, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance and decided to remit all 8 appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. It directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties and the assessees to cooperate in the proceedings.

Following a precedent from the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove any actual business activity and that his turnover represented accommodation entries. However, the addition made by the AO at 2% was deleted as the assessee admitted to earning commission on quantity from Rs. 1 to Rs. 1.5 per quintal.

The tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, instructing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, aligning with a precedent set by the Madras High Court.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding non-appearance due to a genuine reason. It was held that to serve the interest of justice, the issues in dispute should be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to resolve the matter through the DTVSVS 2024. Consequently, noting the assessee's choice, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and, following the decision of the Madras High Court, decided to dismiss the appeal. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessees' submission regarding non-appearance. It remitted all disputed issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing that adequate opportunity of being heard be provided to both assessees.