Loading ITAT cases…
382 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the 439-day delay, noting the assessee's condonation petition and citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. It further deleted the Rs. 10,000/- penalty, attributing the non-cooperation to potential communication gaps during the COVID pandemic outbreak.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. One appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to this settlement, and the other was dismissed as infructuous as it was a duplicate.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on judicial pronouncements that the relevant date for reckoning the six-year period is the date of handing over of seized material to the AO of the non-searched person, which was after the relevant period for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the application afresh after considering all documents and providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte, denying the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case and produce additional documents. Citing a violation of natural justice, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application afresh after considering all the documents produced by the Appellant and providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Section 10(1) exemption claim afresh. It clarified that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to admit new claims, even without a revised return, contrary to the lower authorities' impugned action.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's counsel had filed submissions and documents before the CIT(A) which were not properly considered. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not complied with Section 250(6) of the Act by not providing a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence.
The ITAT found the explanation for the 42-day delay acceptable and condoned it. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and considering all evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence was crucial to the dispute and was not available with the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with directions for the AO to consider the fresh documents and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the arguments and the need for fair play, the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with liberty to the assessee to furnish fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was an ex parte order and not a speaking order. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies used for benchmarking royalty payments were valid and directed the AO/TPO to include them. It also ruled that no transfer pricing adjustment was needed for royalty paid on brand marketing fees, following previous judicial pronouncements. Issues related to duty drawback and dividend distribution tax were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to present evidence, with the CIT(A) having liberty to dispose of the appeals strictly in accordance with law if the assessee fails to cooperate.
The Tribunal accepted the submission that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the scheme application failed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the lender companies. The AO failed to provide evidence to negate the genuineness of the transactions, and the additions were based on suspicion.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act in the instant case was granted by the wrong authority. Specifically, the notice dated 26.07.2022 was issued after obtaining approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, on 25.07.2022. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year involved was AY 2016-17, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.07.2022. The Tribunal observed that the approval u/s 151 of the Act in this case has been granted by the wrong authority. Getting an approval from a wrong authority is fatal to the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were rightly quashed by the Id. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law and also barred by limitation. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law and also barred by limitation. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was vitiated as it was based solely on an audit objection without any new material or information outside the assessment record. The Assessing Officer failed to point out any specific non-disclosure by the assessee during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of receipt of seized material by the jurisdictional AO, not the date of search. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application seeking to withdraw the appeal, citing that the grounds for appeal had been resolved. Specifically, the assessee had filed a rectification application under section 154, which led to an order from the NFAC rectifying the CIT(A)'s order and granting the benefit of lower taxation under section 115BAA. Following this, the AO had passed an appeal effect order allowing the assessee this benefit. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, based on the assessee's request and the subsequent resolution of the issues that formed the basis of the appeal. No issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed without deciding the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the issues in dispute were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition from Rs. 13,15,000/- to Rs. 3,15,000/-, noting that neither party fully substantiated their claims. It also held that Section 115BBE was not applicable to transactions before April 1, 2017, for AY 2017-18, citing a Madras High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not discuss the issues on merits or jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is not permissible. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing an adequate opportunity.
The ITAT found that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed within time, and therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was incorrect. It also found the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits from past withdrawals during the demonetization period to be plausible, supported by a Paper Book, and directed the deletion of the Section 69A addition.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could properly explain the purchases, nor could the department entirely disregard the evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the disallowance for bogus purchases was restricted to 15% of the total purchases.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was flawed. It noted that the reasons recorded for reopening did not quantify the escaped income, were undated, and the mandatory approval under Section 151 was not supplied to the assessee along with the reasons, as required by precedents set by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that in cases where there is a one-day delay in depositing PF/ESI due to technical glitches in the online portal, and the assessee cannot be penalized. However, in this specific case, since no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the technical glitch, the issue was restored to the AO for limited purpose.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.06.2024 and the assessment and penalty orders of the Ld. AO dated 29.12.2018, 28.06.2019, and 15.12.2019 for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. The reasoning was based on the assessee's plea of custody and mental health issues, which led to the significant delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the assessment orders and the consequential penalty. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of significant delay attributable to personal hardship like custody and mental illness, and where ex-parte orders have been passed, it is expedient to provide an opportunity for a fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty order, being consequential, was also set aside. The Ld. AO is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.06.2024 and the assessment and penalty orders of the Ld. AO dated 29.12.2018, 28.06.2019, and 15.12.2019 for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. The reasoning was based on the assessee's plea of custody and mental health issues, which led to the significant delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the assessment orders and the consequential penalty. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of significant delay attributable to personal hardship like custody and mental illness, and where ex-parte orders have been passed, it is expedient to provide an opportunity for a fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty order, being consequential, was also set aside. The Ld. AO is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal granted further relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- for a deposit in December 2011, finding it plausible as it followed a significant withdrawal. However, it confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,98,000/- as the assessee failed to explain the source of the initial three deposits and subsequent deposits in March 2012, thus not discharging the onus of proof.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and the findings of the Ld. JCIT(A). It was observed that the Ld. JCIT(A) had analyzed the relevant documents submitted by the assessee concerning the claim of tax deducted at source. The first appellate authority found that the credit of TDS claimed by the assessee was proper. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority possesses co-terminus powers and can choose to ask for a report, remand the matter to the AO, or decide the issue based on the material available on record. After considering the findings of the Ld. JCIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to disturb them. Consequently, the grounds taken by the Revenue were dismissed. The specific issue of whether Rule 46A was contravened by accepting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity was implicitly decided in favor of the assessee by upholding the JCIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the documentary evidence including bank statements and confirmations, found that the loan from M/s. Olwin Garments P. Ltd. was genuine and had been repaid. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 made under Section 69A was deleted. The ground challenging the reassessment under Sections 147/148 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after the assessee files a detailed condonation application.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, considering the peculiar facts and the interest of justice. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, considering the peculiar facts and the interest of justice. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings was granted by the wrong authority, which is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the factual aspects regarding the PAN issue and the ownership of the income, and to decide the issues afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal, noting that the orders were passed exparte without deciding on merits, remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that Section 115BBE was not applicable to the assessment year. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,62,487/-, providing a relief of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The estimation of income at 8% of turnover was upheld.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their grievance had been redressed by the Department. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance by the AO was ad-hoc and not supported by evidence. The CIT(A) had correctly verified and justified the relief granted to the assessee, and the Revenue's grounds of appeal lacked merit.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5), Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to issue the assessment order as the assessee resided and conducted business in Aizwal, Mizoram, and the bank account was also located there.
The Tribunal found that the Section 148 notice was indeed unsigned. Relying on the principle that an unsigned notice is invalid, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 was vitiated, and thus, the assessment order was quashed. The grounds on merits became academic.