Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be prioritized over technicalities like limitation. The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condoned, and the case was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17. In that prior decision, the co-ordinate bench had allowed the interest expenditure paid to the members of the GPF Trust. The reasoning provided in the prior decision was that the assessee is a GPF Trust and an association of persons, receiving funds from employee subscriptions. These funds are invested, and part is given as loans to the holding company. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue authorities' finding that there was no nexus between the funds received and applied towards investments, stating that outright disallowance of total interest expenditure was uncalled for. The Tribunal also noted a procedural issue in the prior case regarding the enhancement of disallowance by the CIT(A) without a show cause notice, which violated principles of natural justice. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Ld. AO to delete the addition. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter after considering the documentary evidence related to cash deposits and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The quantum appeal (ITA No. 243/GTY/2025) was allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/GTY/2025) was also allowed, quashing the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that the foundation for the penalty levy would no longer survive if the assessment order is restored. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if necessary. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed ex-parte because the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence and proofs regarding cash deposits in the bank account before the AO, and similarly failed to furnish evidence before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after considering the evidence and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal concerning the quantum of assessment (ITA No. 243/GTY/2025) was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/GTY/2025), the Tribunal held that since the assessment order was restored, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) would stand quashed as its foundation would no longer survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The principle here is that a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is consequential to an assessment, and if the assessment is set aside or restored for fresh adjudication, the penalty may also need to be re-examined or quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not reply to the show cause notice during assessment proceedings and consequently could not furnish documents. Furthermore, the CIT(A) noted in its order that the assessee did not provide the cash book, day-wise cash register, or necessary evidence of cash flow, sales, or expenses, making it impossible to ascertain the sources of cash. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal found that restoring the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee would serve the ends of justice. The appeal was accordingly restored to the file of the AO for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the books of accounts and documents of the assessee were seized by the service tax authorities, preventing their production before the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the orders were passed without considering these crucial records. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the cases to the file of the AO. This restoration is for the purpose of examining the books of accounts and documents, and for deciding the case denovo after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee is prevented from presenting its case due to circumstances beyond its control, such as seizure of records by another agency, the appellate authorities should provide an opportunity for a fresh adjudication after the records are made available. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made on account of money received by the assessee from retirement benefits. It was of the opinion that the issue required further verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the case afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the books of accounts and documents were seized by the service tax authorities, preventing their production before the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the orders were passed without considering these crucial records. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the cases to the file of the AO. This restoration is to allow the AO to examine the books of accounts and documents after they are presented by the assessee. The AO is directed to decide the case denovo after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The principle is that where crucial evidence was unavailable due to external seizure and could not be presented to the lower authorities, the matter should be remanded for a fresh consideration upon production of such evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the amount of ₹6,46,430/- was received from four LIC holders and ₹1,96,000/- from the sale of vehicles. However, the summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the persons who provided the cash for LIC premiums and vehicle sale were not complied with. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the issue required further examination by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer with a direction to summon these individuals again, examine them, and decide the issue denovo (afresh). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits into the bank account needed to be examined at the level of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted the details of withdrawals and deposits provided by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue denovo. The Tribunal did not make a finding on the merits of the addition but remanded the case for fresh consideration. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire issue was remitted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 470 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order passed by the NFAC was upheld by the learned CIT(A) without looking into the merits of the case, by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for necessary re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to be provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and it was further clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless required for a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal disagreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion and set aside the order, restoring the AO's order. The Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming wrong brought forward losses and their set-off, which were not permissible under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that these disallowed losses constituted the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty by solely relying on the assessee's claim that the current year's loss was not intentional and was due to technical reasons, citing the Reliance Petro products case. However, the Tribunal opined that the assessee had wrongly claimed the loss, which was not allowable, and thus furnished inaccurate particulars of income that were not genuine. Therefore, the Tribunal found the AO's imposition of penalty to be justified. The operative direction was to restore the order of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the relief claimed by the assessee under Section 89(1) of the Act cannot be denied for a technical breach of not filing Form 10E within the prescribed time, especially when the calculation of the relief was available in the assessment order and the appellate order. The Tribunal found that the assessee is entitled to the relief. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the relief as claimed. This issue was allowed. For the second issue concerning the discrepancy of suppressed salary amounting to ₹1,12,080/-, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence filed by the assessee and Form 26AS, and after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the case was apparently decided ex-parte by the CIT(A). It noted that despite numerous notices, no response or compliance was made by the assessee before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The Tribunal found this to be in violation of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless required for a valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC had indeed passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reasoned that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to decide the appeal on merit after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine, with no objection raised by the Revenue. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the ITAT held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeals to the file of the NFAC. The appeals were consequently restored to the NFAC with a direction to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The quantum appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were quashed, as the very foundation for their levy would not survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The penalty appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the 05-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason to be bonafide and genuine, as the Revenue's DR did not raise any objection. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to appear before the AO, leading to an assessment under section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, and also did not appear before the CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for want of information. Despite the assessee's non-appearance, the Tribunal, in consonance with the principle of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly with the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on available material. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit due to the non-condonation of the delay of 374 days. Upon examining the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal found them to be reasonable and bonafide. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter after considering all the evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. The issue of addition at 8% on total deposits was not decided on merit by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine, and noting the absence of any objection from the Revenue. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be better served by restoring the appeals to the file of the NFAC. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the NFAC to decide the matters on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were quashed as the foundation for their levy would not survive with the restoration of the quantum appeals. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine, especially since the Revenue's representative did not object. The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This decision was made because both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed, and the penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were quashed, as the foundation for their levy would not survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The quantum appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the penalty appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals, finding the reason for the delay to be bonafide and genuine, especially since the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a direction to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This decision was based on the principle that the ends of justice would be better served by allowing the assessee to present their case. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed. The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were restored, the very foundation for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive, and thus the penalty orders stood quashed. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes in respect of quantum and allowed in respect of penalties.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee before the ITAT was barred by limitation by 43 days. The Tribunal condoned this delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, as the learned DR did not raise any objection. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning a delay of 343 days. The Tribunal found the reasons for this delay to be genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that despite numerous notices, no one responded or complied before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A). The direction was to decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless for a valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC had passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that not all evidence was placed before the AO and that the NFAC's order lacked proper consideration. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the learned AO. The AO was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay of 312 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC were genuine and bona fide. Consequently, the delay was condoned. The order of the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, was set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the NFAC with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. For penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 442 & 443/GTY/2025), since the quantum appeal was restored, the penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the NFAC were quashed as their foundation would not survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the penalty appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons, and therefore, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal also found that the ends of justice would be well served by admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 29. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh after taking into account all the additional evidences and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for brought forward losses from assessment years where no returns were filed is incorrect and not permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, such losses cannot be carried forward and set off against the income of subsequent years. However, the Tribunal noted that the chart containing the net taxable income for various assessment years was not before the Assessing Officer or the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to ascertain the real income of the assessee and bring the correct income to tax, making necessary adjustments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes only. No specific issue was left undecided, but the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of substantial justice. The Tribunal observed that by not condoning the delay, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. It was also noted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case and that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the NFAC for adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the NFAC and provide all relevant documents and evidences. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary re-adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard, and cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that once the return of income filed under Section 153A is accepted, the Assessing Officer has no locus standi to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) with reference to the original return filed under Section 139(1). The penalty was not maintainable as the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be carried forward and set off if returns of income were not filed for those years. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering the provided chart.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be carried forward and set off if returns of income were not filed for those years. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering the provided chart.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be carried forward and set off if returns of income were not filed for those years. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering the provided chart.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be carried forward and set off if returns of income were not filed for those years. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering the provided chart.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be bogus, the entire amount could not be disallowed, especially when sales were not doubted and accounts were not rejected. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 3% on the bogus purchases, considering it as reasonable profit earned.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide afresh after allowing the assessee to submit evidence. The assessee failed to provide necessary certificates regarding domicile and business engagement to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary re-adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeal and admitted it for adjudication. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order which was based on the finding that the assessment was framed against a non-existent entity, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the merits, when substantial justice is at stake, is not appropriate. The delay was condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the property documents, affidavit filed before the Election Commission, and cash deposit details. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without properly detailing the points of determination and reasons.