Loading ITAT cases…
158 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's petition for condonation of delay and explanation for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided evidence of responding to notices. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the penalty appeal due to the assessee's failure to explain the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The core issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 by the ITO, which the assessee argued was without jurisdiction as per the Faceless Assessment Scheme and High Court pronouncements. The Revenue contended that the notice was part of the assessment procedure, but the Tribunal found the notice to be invalid and quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the penalty appeal due to the assessee's failure to explain the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, following its own precedent for AY 2017-2018, upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It found that the expenses were actually incurred and disallowed under Section 40A(3), but not necessarily a 'false entry' to attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(d) as initially framed by the AO, and the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the penalty appeal due to the assessee's failure to explain the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by the JAO instead of a faceless authority, violating the provisions of Section 151A and the e-Assessment Scheme. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the 'first proviso' to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the penalty appeal due to the assessee's failure to explain the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the penalty appeal due to the assessee's failure to explain the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the penalty appeal due to the assessee's failure to explain the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, as the AO was not given a reasonable opportunity to examine or rebut it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the faceless mechanism, rendering the assessment invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) has the power to set aside a best judgment assessment under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a), they must first adjudicate on grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction. The CIT(A) cannot simply set aside the assessment without addressing jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the faceless mechanism, rendering the assessment invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, especially since the assessee claimed not to have received notices due to incorrect email communication.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions and its own previous order in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was bad in law as it was passed against a deceased person without bringing the legal heirs on record. Regarding the assessment of cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not properly verified the transactions and documentation provided by the assessee, which indicated the deposits were sale proceeds of the petrol pump and not the assessee's income. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that reassessment proceedings initiated by a Jurisdictional AO after the Faceless Assessment Scheme came into effect are without jurisdiction. The initial defect in jurisdiction renders the subsequent reassessment order void.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions and its own previous order in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 was barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a right to purchase the property, and its relinquishment constituted a transfer of a capital asset. The Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiry by calling for specific details, and the view taken by the AO was a possible view, thus not making the assessment erroneous.
The Tribunal found substantial dissimilarities between the seized document and the actual registered transactions. The seized document was unsigned, undated, not seized from the assessee's possession, and lacked corroborative evidence of cash payment. Affidavits from vendors confirmed no excess payment. The addition was based on suspicion, which cannot substitute proof.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 144B read with Section 151A of the Act is invalid. Consequently, the assessment order based on such a notice is also vitiated.
The Tribunal partly agreed with the assessee, accepting cash deposits derived from sales declared in the books of account. However, it disallowed capital contributions from partners due to lack of proof of their creditworthiness.
As per the scheme, the Designated Authority issued Form-2 showing that the assessee had already paid the disputed amount, resulting in a NIL balance payable and an indicated refundable amount. Consequently, both parties agreed that the appeal was not maintainable and should be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay of 314 days in filing the appeal. The assessee's conduct was deemed casual and negligent, lacking in bona fides, and therefore, the delay could not be condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 413 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal decided to proceed with adjudicating the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a delay of 314 days in filing the appeal and failed to provide sufficient cause or supporting evidence for this delay. Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that delay cannot be condoned without adequate and convincing reasons and that the assessee displayed a casual approach and negligence in pursuing the case.
The Tribunal found substantial and material dissimilarities between the impounded document and the registered sale deeds. The document was unsigned, undated, not seized from the assessee, and lacked any mention of cash payment. Affidavits from vendors confirmed no excess payment. Consequently, the addition was deemed unsustainable as it was based on suspicion without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal found substantial dissimilarities between the seized document and the actual registered transactions. The seized document was unsigned, undated, not seized from the assessee's possession, and lacked corroborative evidence of cash payment. Affidavits from vendors confirmed no excess payment. The addition was based on suspicion, which cannot substitute proof.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the claim for depreciation on toll road development as an intangible asset was not supported by High Court decisions and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the faceless assessment authority as mandated by law. Therefore, the reassessment order was bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case, which is against the well-settled principle of law. The Tribunal held that even in cases of non-prosecution, the appellate authority should decide on merits based on available records.
The Tribunal noted that while the sale deeds acknowledged the entire sale amount, they lacked payment particulars. However, the assessee provided bank statements and a TDS challan as evidence of subsequent payment. Considering this evidence, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) without following the mandatory procedure for National Faceless Assessment rendered the proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was also vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that while the entire receipts were subject to TDS, assessing the entire gross receipt without considering expenditure or profit was incorrect. It acknowledged that the assessee did not maintain proper books of account.
The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court's order extended limitation for judicial proceedings, it did not extend due dates for TDS filings. The Tribunal also found no exception for late filing fees under Section 234E and upheld the levy of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2).
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind for each assessment year. Therefore, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153C were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the document was digital evidence seized without adhering to the mandatory procedures of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual. Furthermore, the document was considered a 'dumb document' lacking specific details, rendering the AO's interpretation and subsequent additions unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of seed purchases was excessive, especially considering the nature of the business and the evidence provided. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of ROC charges, allowing partial relief.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 506 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's explanation for the delay was factually not disputed, as the decision to file the appeal was triggered by the subsequent penalty order under Section 270A and the associated risk of prosecution. The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted on the advice of its counsel and that the reasons explained did not indicate any malafide or deliberate delay. Citing the settled proposition of law that courts should take a lenient view in construing 'reasonable and sufficient cause' for delay when the reasons are bonafide, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. The judgment also extensively discusses the powers of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, referencing decisions like C.I.T. v. Anand Prasad and NTPC, to hold that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine questions of law arising from facts on record, even if raised for the first time. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee and the supporting additional evidence, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disregarded the AO's favorable remand report without valid reasons. For the capital introduction issue, additional evidence was admitted and factual inconsistencies required verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made towards business promotion expenses. The Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence contrary to Rule 46A was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt regarding the outcome of this specific issue, but the assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a comparative chart showing purchases from related parties and third parties, and the rates paid to related parties for Emerald Cut - TKH and Ruby Cut - THQ were less than the rates paid to third parties. The Tribunal found that the AO made an ad hoc disallowance of 10% without bringing on record any comparable cases or evidence to show that excessive prices were paid to related parties. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Principal CIT Vs. R.G. Buildwell Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 283 (SC). The additions made by the AO towards shortage of stock were also deleted by the CIT(A), but the specific arguments and findings on this issue are not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It was undisputed that there was a delay of 366 days. The assessee's primary explanation for the delay was non-receipt of notices or the order from the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal noted from the Ld. CIT(A)'s order that the assessee had responded to multiple notices electronically on various dates. Furthermore, perusal of Form No. 35 revealed that the assessee had opted for communication through email. The Tribunal found that once the assessee had accepted electronic mode of service and participated in proceedings through it, the plea of being unaware of the appellate proceedings or the passing of the order could not be accepted. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not provided any cogent evidence to demonstrate non-receipt of the order or a sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal reiterated that while "sufficient cause" is interpreted liberally, this liberality cannot extend to negligence or lack of bona fides. In this case, the assessee's conduct reflected a casual approach and failure to exercise due diligence. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was invalid as it was a single, omnibus approval for multiple assessment years without independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year. It also upheld the deletion of the disallowance of Section 80G deduction for CSR donations, finding no prohibition for such claims.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was invalid as it was a single, omnibus approval for multiple assessment years without independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was invalid as it was a single, omnibus approval for multiple assessment years without independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was invalid as it was a single, omnibus approval for multiple assessment years without independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.