Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit could not be categorized as unexplained money under Section 69A as it was immediately utilized for online payments on behalf of students. However, since complete details were not provided, only an income element was estimated.
अपीलों का अनुसरण करने में निर्धारिती की अनिच्छा को ध्यान में रखते हुए, तथा विभागीय प्रतिनिधि द्वारा विरोध न किए जाने पर, निर्धारिती को अपीलें वापस लेने की अनुमति दी गई।
The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being a cooperative bank with a banking license, was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from scheduled banks, distinguishing it from cases involving cooperative banks. The CIT(A)'s partial relief was found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 were invalid. This was based on the assessee's contention, raised under Rule 27, that the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act prior to finalizing the reassessment order. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., which held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) in reassessment proceedings is fatal to the order and cannot be condoned by Section 292BB. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cite any decision to contradict this position. Therefore, the assessment order framed by the AO without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was quashed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the ITAT's earlier order for AY 2011-12, which held that the CIT(A) had no power to direct the re-opening of an assessment for a different year. The issue of merit regarding the addition under Section 68 was rendered infructuous due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was due to reasonable cause. Subsequently, the assessee expressed no intention to pursue the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and submitted the required forms.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the current appeal as they have opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object, and thus the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not provide explanation, in the interest of justice, another opportunity should be given. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to submit documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had participated in the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" and requested the appeal to be dismissed. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of these appeals, stating that the assessee has fulfilled the requirements under the scheme and paid the due amounts.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the dues. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could seek recall if the application under the scheme was rejected.
अपीलों का अनुसरण करने में निर्धारिती की अनिच्छा को ध्यान में रखते हुए, तथा विभागीय प्रतिनिधि द्वारा विरोध न किए जाने पर, निर्धारिती को अपीलें वापस लेने की अनुमति दी गई।
tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of these appeals, stating that the assessee has fulfilled the requirements under the scheme and paid the due amounts.
निर्धारिती ने 'प्रत्यक्ष कर विवाद से विश्वास योजना, 2024' के तहत आवेदन किया है और वह वर्तमान अपील का अनुसरण करने का इच्छुक नहीं है। इसलिए, अपील को वापस लिए जाने की अनुमति दी गई और इसी कारण से खारिज कर दिया गया।
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee did not wish to pursue it, having applied under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the assessee's participation in the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The notice u/s 148 was found to be valid as it was issued within 6 years and with prior approval. However, due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence for the cash deposits, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Although the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's non-prosecution, the CIT(A)'s order lacked the required reasoning. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. Furthermore, considering that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte by the AO due to the assessee's non-response, and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without a proper hearing. While the cash deposit requires satisfactory explanation, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed another opportunity for the assessee to explain the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the issue of long-term capital gain requires verification with documentary evidence. The Tribunal allowed one more opportunity to the assessee and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions solely based on information received from the PMO without conducting independent inquiries. The assessee had also provided documentary evidence and an affidavit denying the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits from sales of gold and ornaments, supported by VAT returns and sales bills. The opening stock addition was also deleted as it represented jewellery held as fixed assets converted to stock upon starting trading.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not justified as it was passed without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the order.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 60 lakhs. The present appeal's tax effect was Rs. 9,54,810/-, which is below the revised limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and fair procedure, decided to set aside the ex-parte order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Subsequently, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence during the appellate proceedings, including ledger accounts, balance sheets, and confirmations, which established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The source of funds was also found to be established.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated were bad in law and quashed the earlier assessment order. The addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit was deleted as the assessee successfully explained the source.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee retains the right to recall the order if their "Vivad se Vishwas" application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed the order without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the Rs. 40,00,000/- deposit was indeed sourced from cash declared under the IDS, supported by statutory documents issued by the Income-tax Department itself. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting these documents as additional evidence or in making an incorrect observation about the declaration of past undisclosed income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- was deleted. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,50,37,941/- was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that only Rs. 1,04,31,897/- represented new loans, and the rest were opening balances, which are not taxable under Section 68. For the new loans, the Tribunal considered the undisputed loans from Bajaj Finance and the other new loans, noting that the AO conducted remand proceedings and did not report any adverse findings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including account payee cheques, TDS on interest payments, ITRs/PAN data of lenders, and explanations for cash deposits via IDS. Since the revenue could not demonstrate any adverse features, the entire addition was deleted. The AO was directed to delete both additions.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, has decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made an addition without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present their case and without a proper inquiry. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not followed the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and conducting a proper inquiry. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition itself but rather on the procedural infirmities in the AO's assessment.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing, considering principles of natural justice. The assessee was also directed to participate in the hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds and accumulated profits greater than the investment made, and there was no evidence that interest-bearing funds were specifically used for investment, the interest disallowance of Rs. 4,22,410/- was deleted, following the precedents of the Bombay High Court.
The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without examining the merits. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Yojana. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated were bad in law and quashed the earlier assessment order. The addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit was deleted as the assessee successfully explained the source.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing, considering principles of natural justice. The assessee was also directed to participate in the hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The tribunal, adhering to natural justice, decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh, de novo adjudication. It instructed the appellant to cooperate by attending future hearings and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण ने पाया कि निर्धारिती को उचित सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया था और एक-पक्षीय आदेश पारित किया गया था। इसलिए, न्यायाधिकरण ने आयकर आयुक्त (अपील) के आदेश को अपास्त करते हुए मामले को पुनर्विचार के लिए वापस भेज दिया।
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit could not be categorized as unexplained money under Section 69A as it was immediately utilized for online payments on behalf of students. However, since complete details were not provided, only an income element was estimated.
The tribunal, after hearing both parties, agreed that the appellant was denied a proper opportunity and the CIT(A)'s order was passed without examining the merits, which is not just. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case is remitted back to the CIT(A) with directions to grant a proper hearing, examine the case on its merits, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law, with the appellant also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be cogent. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and quashed the order.
The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without examining the merits. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the advocate's fault. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had applied under the "Vivad se Vishwas" scheme and was issued Form No. 4.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity and the CIT(A) passed the order without examining the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the 285-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's reasonable explanation. It found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without allowing a proper hearing and without examining the case on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the submissions of both parties, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Revenue's primary contention was that the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal based on additional evidences without providing the AO an opportunity to examine them, which violated Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee's representative, while supporting the CIT(A)'s order, could not effectively counter this procedural argument. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's proposal to restore the case to the AO for a detailed examination of the assessee's evidences. The AO is directed to provide necessary opportunities to the assessee for compliance and verification, ensuring that the assessee avails these opportunities without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with the operative direction being a remand to the AO.
The tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the merits. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is granted a proper hearing opportunity.