Loading ITAT cases…
19 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not stating the points in dispute or recording reasons. The CIT(A) failed to analyze the facts and assessment records, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not stating the points in dispute or recording reasons. The CIT(A) failed to analyze the facts and assessment records, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B) is a procedural lapse and not vital enough to deny the exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the exemption should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not stating the points in dispute or recording reasons. The CIT(A) failed to analyze the facts and assessment records, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not stating the points in dispute or recording reasons. The CIT(A) failed to analyze the facts and assessment records, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that the AO, despite being given ample time (over three years) and having submitted a remand report, failed to conduct further investigations or submit clarifications regarding the unsecured loans. The Tribunal concurred, holding that the AO's failure to perform their duty meant no adverse findings could be presumed against the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.
The Tribunal noted that all previous orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. Agreeing with both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded both cases to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that all previous orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. Agreeing with both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded both cases to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT observed that the AO accepted other sources of cash but rejected the explanation for paddy trading. Since the assessee had declared a net profit of 8.52% on the turnover of ₹38,65,000/- under section 44AD without adverse findings, and the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry into the assessee's claims of purchases (some by cheque), the addition under section 69A was deemed unwarranted. The ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹38,65,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case where the matter was remanded. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.