Loading ITAT cases…
60 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause'. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause'. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inability to make an effective representation due to financial constraints and the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to incorrect email communication. Therefore, to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's alternative plea for addition based on the peak credit theory, given the regular deposits and withdrawals in the bank account. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the AO passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance, and the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper verification. Considering the audited books of account and the assessee's claim of true and correct results, the matter requires fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 6,90,000/- was explained by the cash received from the sale of a plot, even though the sale transaction was not disclosed in the previous assessment year. The addition made in the current assessment year was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without dealing with the issues on merits, especially considering the assessee's explanation for non-appearance. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without dealing with the issues on merits, especially considering the assessee's explanation for non-appearance. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was deficient as it did not adjudicate the assessee's primary claim regarding the non-receipt of commission from BPCL. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.