Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the impugned first appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) deserved to be set aside. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution but had failed to comply with the mandate 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. Considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in the hearings and not seek unnecessary adjournments, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition, based on SEBI investigation reports, was made without providing the investigation report of the Directorate of Investigation to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 193 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had contradictory findings on the condonation of delay in the same order. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasoning for the delay to be cogent, a view also shared by the revenue's representative. Regarding the merits of the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not complied with the notices in the present proceedings, although a reply-letter denying the transaction was filed in an earlier proceeding. Both parties consented to a remand of the case to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the consensus and remanded the matter to the AO for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to provide necessary opportunities to the assessee, who was also directed to make adequate representation without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The AO was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law if the assessee failed to comply. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted fresh documentary evidence, including a bill from Krishi Upaj Samiti and land holding documents. However, judicial protocol required verification of these fresh evidences by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had shown bonafide and reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on denova basis, giving one last opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of facts and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. It was held that the assessee is free to file applications for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing as notices were sent to a wrong email ID and also via ITBA portal. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits and investments.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, both orders were set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. It was held that the assessee is free to file applications for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. It was held that the assessee is free to file applications for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal found that the notices were not served through the correct email ID as provided, nor were the provisions of Section 282A of the Act complied with. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) purportedly for rectification, but a prior order of the CIT(A) had already been set aside by the Tribunal and remanded for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT (Exemption) and thus the genuineness of funds could not be verified. The Tribunal, however, conceded that a last opportunity should be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty, as the assessee, acting as a 'Kachha Arahtias', was not liable for audit under Section 44AB based on the gross commission income. The reassessment order itself was also held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271E was illegal and bad in law on the limited legal ground that no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order dated 28.07.2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal respectfully concurred with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills and the Hon'ble High Court in the cited case, which held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D/271E cannot be imposed in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not bring any contrary decision to its notice. Therefore, following the doctrine of precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal explicitly stated that while statutorily there might not be a specific requirement for satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty under Section 271E, it had to follow judicial discipline. The issue of whether the assessee was an agricultural credit cooperative society not covered by Section 269SS/269T was not expressly decided, as the appeal was dismissed on the ground of lack of satisfaction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee expressed no intention to pursue it further, having opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The assessee was permitted to recall the order if their scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's cash book by the AO under Section 145(3) was not legally justified. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reason for rejection, i.e., cash withdrawals from the bank despite cash availability in the cash book, is not a valid ground for rejection in the absence of any adverse findings regarding the entries in the books of accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that how a business is run is the prerogative of the assessee, and there was no evidence of incorrect entries. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO considered the declared income of Rs. 4,78,900/- as per the return, which was the result of net profits after considering all expenditures and the total turnover disclosed in the audited accounts. The cash deposit of Rs. 70 lakhs was also part of this gross turnover. Since this cash deposit was part of the sale proceeds, duly recorded in the regular books of account and accepted by the AO, it could not be treated as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal found no reason to treat the sale proceeds as bogus or unacceptable, as the AO had not pointed out any specific defects or wrong entries in the books of account or stock registers. In the absence of gross alimony in the books of account and supporting documents, the books of account could not be arbitrarily rejected. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cash balance available as of November 8, 2016, to cover the cash deposit of Rs. 70 lakhs on November 10, 2016, and therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not legally justified and was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.