Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 13 of 17
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and deemed it appropriate to set aside the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the requirement to file an audit report in Form 10B along with the return is directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without proper application of mind and directed the matter to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that she was residing abroad and was unaware of the assessment proceedings until she was informed by her nephew. The Tribunal found that if the date of issue of the demand notice (30.11.2019) was taken as the date of service, then the delay was justifiable. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided the assessee an opportunity to produce documents and be heard before deciding the application on its merit. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee were relevant and crucial for adjudicating the dispute. The matter was restored to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 50-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of medical treatment and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash balance in its books to explain the deposits made during the demonetization period. The lower authorities doubted the assessee's actions without bringing on record cogent material to disprove the source of funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the requirement to file an audit report in Form 10B along with the return is directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that following the decision of the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd, amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022, to Section 14A are not retrospective. Therefore, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A if no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with notices from both the AO and CIT(A), leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. To ensure natural justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the cash deposits were not satisfactorily explained, they likely represented business receipts. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was deemed appropriate, not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the appeal was inadvertently filed before the ITAT instead of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the cash deposits, the lower authorities had accepted his status as a retailer and his assessment for turnover under Section 44AD. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- was deemed just and proper, without treating it as a precedent. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that quantum additions alone do not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee had provided evidence. Relying on the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the Tribunal found that the penalty provisions were not applicable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's compliance with previous notices and attributed the recent non-compliance to unavoidable circumstances. It ruled that the CIT (Exemption) had rejected the application without fully considering the facts. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) to reconsider the facts, collect relevant information, and grant registration as per law after providing a proper hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the documents submitted by the assessee were not considered by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal held that quantum additions alone do not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee had provided evidence. Relying on the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the Tribunal found that the penalty provisions were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter requires a de novo assessment. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the authorities had no power to impose late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015. Reliance was placed on various High Court and ITAT judgments.
The Tribunal held that the authorities had no power to impose late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015. Reliance was placed on various High Court and ITAT judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of the order and for the sake of complete justice, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the facts, collect relevant information, and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the issue of bogus long-term capital gains was debatable and involved subjective appreciation of facts, which does not automatically attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed in the assessee's prior appeal, the penalty levied based on that assessment order had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case, with the rider that they must plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal noted that communication gaps might have occurred due to the virtual hearing mechanism and that the lower appellate order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit and directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to be heard and decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals solely on account of delay, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector vs. Katiji, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays caused by sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals solely on account of delay, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector vs. Katiji, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays caused by sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO, in the interest of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Ld. AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable. It noted that the presumption under section 292C applies only to searched parties, not third persons, and that the lower authorities relied solely on the statement of Mr. Prateek Nagpal without proper corroboration. The assessee was also not given an opportunity to cross-examine.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and found merit in the assessee's submission.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 771 days, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and relevant case law. It also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) to provide a hearing on merit.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and found merit in the assessee's submission.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit and directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to be heard and decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law because it was initiated after the assessee had passed away. The appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F is valid as the section provides exemption on capital gains from the sale of a capital asset other than a residential house. The disallowance by the lower authorities was reversed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity on merit and the authorities below had not decided the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity for a hearing and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer from the prescribed authority was a common approval for seven assessees for seven assessment years. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such a combined approval vitiates the entire assessment.