Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 73,07,150/- under Section 69A of the Act based on cash found by the CID, Assam Police, and subsequent search operations. The addition was made due to the lack of a proper explanation for the source of the cash. The Tribunal observed that during the first appellate proceeding, there was no representation from the assessee's side. Considering the facts, the interest of justice, and the prayer of the assessee's counsel for another chance to produce documents, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to substantiate her case with cogent documents. The Tribunal cautioned that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee failed to comply.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted provisional registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) for AY 2022-23 to 2026-27 on May 28, 2021, in Form 10AC. Subsequently, Form 10AB was filed for regularization. The Ld. CIT(E) had sought a copy of the existing registration under Section 12A/12AA or Section 12AB. The assessee failed to provide this during the hearing before the CIT(E). However, during the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee produced a certificate showing exemption granted under Section 12AA(1)(b)(i) on September 13, 2017. Considering these facts, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration and decision as per law. The assessee was directed to furnish the certificate of registration granted on September 13, 2017, before the Ld. CIT(E) and comply with any other requirements deemed necessary by the Ld. CIT(E) for granting registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii).
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 1275 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasoning was based on the affidavit filed by the assessee before the ITAT, which provided an explanation for the delay, and also considering the fact that the assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 with an estimated income of 20%, which was considered high. The Tribunal also took into account the prayer made by the assessee's counsel for one more chance to represent the case and the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The issue of whether the delay should have been condoned by the CIT(A) was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and that since the income was not taxable, the assessee was eligible for a refund of the TDS. The Tribunal found that the judgments relied upon by the assessee's counsel supported the case on similar facts. Respectfully following the cited judgments, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The operative direction was to allow the appeals, implying the grant of exemption and refund of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. Observing that the assessee had not participated in the first appellate proceedings, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was for the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, in accordance with the law, after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. No specific issue was left undecided, but the entire appeal was to be re-adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that while it is expected for an assessee to file appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona fide and beyond the assessee's control, it can be construed as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which clarifies that delay supported by justifiable reasons should be viewed liberally to achieve substantial justice. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 423 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). The assessee will be provided an opportunity of being heard before the de-novo assessment order is passed. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's order was ex-parte, as the assessee had not participated in the proceedings. Furthermore, the NFAC had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not made full compliance even before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to fully cooperate with the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer was also directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the case was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act due to escaped income, and notices under Section 148 and other statutory notices were issued. The assessee did not respond to these notices, nor did they respond before the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel submitted that the profit estimated by the AO at 8% on gross sale receipts was very high, as the actual profit margin in the petroleum product business is only 1% to 2%. Considering the facts, the prayer of the assessee's counsel, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee is directed to substantiate their case with cogent documents and avoid unnecessary adjournments. No further leniency will be granted if the assessee fails to comply.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee paid interest expenditure of Rs.31,80,846/- to various banks and could not explain the purpose for which the overdraft was utilized. Although the assessee received interest of Rs.40,78,182/- on fixed deposits, the assessee failed to establish the linkage between the income earned and the interest expenditure incurred during the proceedings before the lower authorities. Consequently, the expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities, the AO and the CIT(A), and considered the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned. The operative direction is the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a non-filer and did not respond to any notices during the assessment proceedings. The AO obtained information under section 133(6) regarding purchases and added 8% of these purchases as estimated business income. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. Considering the assessee's prayer for another opportunity and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate their case with cogent documents and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal stated that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee fails to comply. The issue of the addition of Rs. 6,032/- towards interest income was not expressly decided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee filed the claim before the CIT(A) and that since the income is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The reasoning was based on the principle that tax authorities should grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee, as supported by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, and by respectfully following the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, directing that the compensation be considered exempt and the TDS be refunded.