Loading ITAT cases…
37 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing the appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The Tribunal reasoned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that delay should be viewed liberally when supported by justifiable reasons, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes that delay, when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for substantial justice. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23 was also remanded along with the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the enhanced exemption limit of up to Rs.25,00,000/- under Section 10(10AA)(ii) of the Act in respect of leave encashment received on retirement. The Tribunal noted that the issue of deduction under Section 10(10AA)(ii) is no longer res integra, citing decisions of co-ordinate benches. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to a decision that allowed the enhanced limit based on Notification No. 31/2023, considering it applicable even if issued belatedly, and that the assessee's claim was within the revised limit. The Tribunal also referenced a decision that found adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) invalid without prior intimation, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the restricting of the deduction by the lower authorities was not sustainable and liable to be deleted. The action of the CPC in restricting the exemption to Rs.3,00,000/- and the confirmation by the CIT(A) were set aside. The AO was directed to allow the exemption as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 522 days in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC is directed to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The issue of whether the NFAC correctly decided the grounds of appeal on merits was not decided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded. The operative direction is to remand the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing the appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The Tribunal reasoned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that delay should be viewed liberally when supported by justifiable reasons, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes that delay, when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for substantial justice. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23 was also remanded along with the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing the appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The Tribunal reasoned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that delay should be viewed liberally when supported by justifiable reasons, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes that delay, when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for substantial justice. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23 was also remanded along with the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing the appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The Tribunal reasoned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that delay should be viewed liberally when supported by justifiable reasons, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes that delay, when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for substantial justice. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23 was also remanded along with the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect of the dispute, as per the demand notice issued u/s 156 of the Act, was Rs. 43,79,124/-, which is less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as stipulated in Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect mentioned by the Revenue in Form No. 36 (Rs. 77,80,900/-) was inconsistent with the demand notice. Since the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on maintainability grounds due to the low tax effect, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee, which was in support of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the case was selected for scrutiny to verify purchases. The assessee could not substantiate purchases of Rs. 46,61,244/- from M/s Shreeji Trading with cogent documents during assessment proceedings. The assessee also failed to furnish any documents or represent its case during the first appellate proceedings. Considering the assessee's prayer for one more chance and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no second leniency would be granted in case of failure. The issue regarding the validity of the notice under section 143(2) was not expressly decided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 9,14,76,324/- as undisclosed income from the sale of goods to BPCL, which was not shown in the computation of income. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee failed to produce evidence due to not obtaining valid service of statutory notices, leading to non-compliance and a lack of awareness of the assessment order. To meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order based on available materials. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer and failed to avail opportunities before the CIT(A), leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, the assessee claimed an inability to file some evidence. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with a direction to examine the documents. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the CIT(A)'s proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the AO for two previous financial years, FY 2014-15 and 2015-16, had also been allowed by the CIT(A), and the Revenue had not brought any adverse material against this. Considering the totality of the facts, the Tribunal decided to delete the addition made by the AO for the impugned assessment year. The Tribunal's reasoning appears to be based on the fact that the CIT(A) had already deleted additions for prior years without any challenge from the Revenue, and by extension, applied a similar approach to the current year. The operative direction is the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the detailed grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the validity of the search and limitation were implicitly set aside by the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period of 4 years, and there was no allegation of the assessee failing to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO had already examined the entire issue and accepted the assessee's plea in the proceedings under Section 143(3)/264. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded for reopening the case stated that information appeared in the database, which cannot be considered tangible material to reopen the case. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 vs. L & T Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reassessment proceedings could not be initiated after the expiry of four years. The Tribunal concluded that this was a complete change of opinion by the AO without any tangible materials, and reopening a case already examined by the AO is not permitted. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was completed under Section 143(3) on 23.03.2015 with additions. Following a Section 264 revision, the AO passed an order on 27.05.2016 accepting the share capital as genuine. The AO then issued a notice under Section 148 on 25.03.2019, alleging receipt of share capital from two bogus/shell companies, making an addition of Rs. 2.35 Crore from M/s Bhagyashree Vincom Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was initiated beyond the period of 4 years, and there was no allegation of the assessee failing to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The AO had already examined the entire issue and accepted the assessee's plea in the proceedings under Section 143(3)/264. The Tribunal observed that the reason recorded by the AO, stating that the company received funds from 'bogus/shell companies appearing in the data base,' was not tangible material to reopen the case. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 vs. L & T Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reassessment proceedings could not be initiated after the expiry of four years. The Tribunal concluded that this was a complete change of opinion by the AO without any tangible material, and reopening a case already examined is not permitted. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the ROC, Shilong, had confirmed that the company's address was correct, it was filing annual returns, and had not been struck off. While an Income Tax Inspector reported the non-existence of the address, the Tribunal found that the AO's addition was only on the difference between the purchase and sale of shares (Rs. 2,48,15,000/-) and not on the total purchases and sales. The Tribunal reasoned that if the company was indeed a shell company used for money laundering, the addition should have been on the total purchases and sales, not just the difference. The partial addition made by the AO was therefore considered not acceptable. The Tribunal also noted that notices issued by revenue authorities were duly served at the assessee's given address, contradicting the inspector's report. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present cogent documents.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) relied on evidence submitted for the first time on appeal without affording the AO an opportunity to verify it, violating Rule 46A. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed within the prescribed limitation period, as the limitation was to be counted from the date of the Miscellaneous Application order. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the assessee to provide a status report on the CBI proceedings and the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed within the prescribed limitation period, as the limitation was to be counted from the date of the Miscellaneous Application order. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the assessee to provide a status report on the CBI proceedings and the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed within the prescribed limitation period, as the limitation was to be counted from the date of the Miscellaneous Application order. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the assessee to provide a status report on the CBI proceedings and the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated after more than three years from the end of the assessment year, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) was mandatory under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The approval obtained from the PCIT was invalid, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Given the assessee's consistent non-representation, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that her income accrued or arose from a source situated in the specified area. Merely updating an address with the employer was not enough to satisfy the conditions for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits and that the matter should be decided afresh in the interest of natural justice. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption for the retrenchment compensation and accumulated leave encashment received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption for the retrenchment compensation and accumulated leave encashment received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order upholding the penalty and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the penalty appeal either along with or after deciding the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of the bank account being fraudulently opened and operated by his ex-wife was not substantiated with documentary evidence of criminal proceedings. However, considering the overall facts, the addition was restricted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption for the retrenchment compensation and accumulated leave encashment received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee possessed a valid registration certificate effective from AY 2022-23 to 2026-27, which was granted after the assessment order but not produced before the lower authorities. The issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration of this registration.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter, allowing the assessee to file a condonation of delay application. The CIT(A) is directed to consider this application and then decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond adequately to the AO and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present documents.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the prayer of the assessee's counsel, decided to remit the case back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to substantiate their claims with cogent documents.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the addition under Section 69C lacked cogent explanation and was based on assumptions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's application for immunity from penalty was rejected due to a technical mistake in not submitting the prescribed form. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh penalty order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the steel purchases and that the purchases were indeed bogus.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's non-compliance was not appreciable, the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.