Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delays under Section 253(5), citing the principle of substantial justice from *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*. It condoned the delays and remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delays under Section 253(5), citing the principle of substantial justice from *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*. It condoned the delays and remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delays under Section 253(5), citing the principle of substantial justice from *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*. It condoned the delays and remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had disposed of the case on merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits, considering all evidence.
The ITAT condoned the delays, finding 'sufficient cause' due to the assessees being non-operational and not receiving notices. It remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessees.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had simply upheld the assessment order without proper application of mind. The Revenue's representative suggested remanding the case for fresh assessment to allow proper analysis of evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause. It also noted that the CIT(A) had erroneously dismissed the first appeal on grounds of delay, as the actual service date of the rectification order was later than the date mentioned.
The Tribunal, agreeing with the Revenue's suggestion, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to provide complete submissions with supporting evidence to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before it was against the original intimation under Section 143(1) dated January 29, 2024, and not against the rectification order passed by the AO under Section 154 on June 13, 2024. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation as infructuous, advising the assessee to file a separate appeal against the rectification order. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the CBDT Circulars and judicial rulings relied upon by the assessee provided relief against the rectification order, not the original intimation. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal against the intimation was upheld. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to file an appeal against the rectification order and bring the relevant material to the notice of the CIT(A), also expressing hope that the CIT(A) would consider any delay condonation application judiciously. The issue of whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB, considering the delayed filing of Form No. 10CCB and the subsequent rectification proceedings, was not decided on merits by the ITAT in this appeal, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal held that since the original order was quashed by the ITAT, it became non-est, and a rectification order based on it could not be sustained. Consequently, the rectification order was also quashed.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had not computed the income of the assessee in a manner known to law. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) in the impugned order noted that the appellant did not furnish all requisite details during assessment proceedings and that the acknowledgement dated 05.03.2022 showed no attached written submissions or evidence. The Tribunal also noted that a full cash book, claimed to be audited, was not even placed before it. In light of these observations and the submissions of the revenue, the Tribunal found that the income was not computed correctly. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the AO for passing a fresh order on a denovo basis. The assessee was directed to place all replies with accompaniments on record before the AO and was at liberty to file additional submissions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee has secured registration under Section 12AB, the 80G application was rejected due to lack of documents. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on a denovo basis.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- was not sustainable. The assessee's explanation that he withdrew Rs. 18,00,000/- from his bank account for stamp duty on property purchases, and due to a delay in registration of one part of the property, the unutilized funds were re-deposited into his own account and the accounts of his wife and father (Rs. 4,00,000/- each on the same day, 17.09.2022) was accepted. The Tribunal noted that the registered sale deeds demonstrated the delay in registration of one property part until 12.02.2013, thus substantiating the assessee's claim of unutilized funds. The Tribunal found symmetry in the assessee's actions, with equivalent amounts deposited on the same day. The close relationship of the lenders (wife and father) and the reasonable time gap between withdrawal and re-deposit were also considered. The Tribunal found that the AO's objection regarding the lack of evidence for proposed purchase was dissolved by the sale deeds. The revenue's contention that the money should have been re-deposited into the assessee's own account and that the source of loans was not confirmed was not found convincing. The Tribunal concluded that the source of investment was adequately explained and directed the AO to delete the addition. The issue of whether the loans were sourced from the assessee's own withdrawn cash was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documents uploaded by the assessee, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delays under Section 253(5), citing the principle of substantial justice from *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*. It condoned the delays and remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delays under Section 253(5), citing the principle of substantial justice from *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*. It condoned the delays and remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was ad hoc and based on estimation, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record specific satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order for AY 2012-13. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was approved.
The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and fair play, considering the submissions of both parties. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the unique circumstances of the assessee's death and the L/R's lack of awareness. It held that the CIT(A) orders were invalid as they were passed against a deceased assessee without the L/R on record and without meritorious adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Consequently, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after properly bringing the Legal Representative on record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in law by dismissing the appeal without first determining the real income of the assessee and tax liability at the original assessment stage. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment on merits, ensuring full opportunity is provided to the assessee for correct determination of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Tribunal noted the peculiar fact that the assessee had deceased during the pendency of the first appeals before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A), being unaware of this fact, passed the impugned orders without impleading the Legal Representatives. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the first appeals for non-prosecution without conducting a meritorious adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal admitted the appeals. The Tribunal then remanded the cases back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with Section 250(6) after taking the legal representatives on record. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the original assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee's counsel, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue's representative concurred.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is imposable only if income is concealed or inaccurate particulars are furnished. The AO's disallowance was based on a general observation of 'certain bills/vouchers' being capital in nature without specific instances, making it an ad-hoc addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition or disallowance is based on estimation. It also noted that for one assessment year, the AO did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in view of the submissions of both parties and the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the matters to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that restoring the matters to the AO would lead to better adjudication based on correct facts and law, without causing prejudice to the revenue. The AO was directed to grant a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee was cautioned to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. The issue of whether the bank account belonged to the assessee or the partnership firm and the sustainability of additions were effectively left for the AO to decide afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in view of the submissions of both parties and the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the matters to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that restoring the matters to the AO would lead to better adjudication based on correct facts and law, without causing prejudice to the revenue. The AO was directed to grant a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee was cautioned to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. The issue of whether the bank account belonged to the assessee or the partnership firm and the sustainability of additions were effectively left for the AO to decide afresh.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a reply was indeed filed and accepted the need to restore the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a hearing opportunity and pass an appropriate order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by remanding the matter. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the AO to provide proper hearing opportunities and for the assessee to remain vigilant and participate in future hearings.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC had rectified the initial disallowance of the bonus provision. The bonus provision was not statutory and therefore not covered under Section 43B. The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders were not on merits and that the assessee was prejudiced by the lapses of their earlier counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had drawn adverse inferences based on information not confronted to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the adverse inferences.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders were not on merits and that the assessee was prejudiced by the lapses of their earlier counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the potential for the revenue not to be prejudiced, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to properly represent their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had relied on the first proviso to section 201(1) and the first proviso to section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provide relief from being deemed an assessee in default if the payee has furnished their return of income, included the sum in computing their income, and paid the tax due. The assessee claimed to have collected all necessary documents to substantiate this claim and requested a remand to the Assessing Officer (AO) for consideration of this benefit. The Revenue's representative fairly agreed to this prayer, requesting that the assessee be directed to present its case fully before the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. In light of this consensus, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's claim under the provisos to sections 201(1) and 201(1A) and decide the matter afresh. The assessee is also directed to make a full representation before the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that M/s Jay-Jyoti (India) Pvt. Ltd. has been consistently held by previous Tribunal orders not to be a paper or shell company. Following these precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the loan of Rs. 35 lakhs was not liable to be added to the assessee's income. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be bonafide. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not decide the case on merits and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's prior reports indicating no escapement of income and no necessity for proceedings under Section 148, followed by a contradictory reassessment order, demonstrated a flawed assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the reassessment proceedings to be illegal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing the principle of preferring substantial justice over technical considerations as per Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to holding two PANs (CDSPR2994D and BOZPA9769J) and had filed a return of income for AY 2017-18 under PAN CDSPR2994D, disclosing an income of Rs. 3,04,290/-. The assessment order, however, was passed under PAN BOZPA9769J, assessing a deposit of Rs. 12,56,000/- without awareness of the other PAN. The Tribunal held that piecemeal assessments of the same individual under different PANs are not permissible, and the total income must be assessed holistically. Considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, the admission of holding two PANs, and the new evidence of the bank certificate, the Tribunal found the case fit for remand to the AO for fresh adjudication. The delay was condoned subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 7,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was directed to participate diligently.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee is free to recall the order if the application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the auditor's report clearly indicated stock degradation and valuation on a realizable basis. The Tribunal also noted that the bank had taken possession of the stock due to NPA, and the assessee had incurred significant accumulated losses, thus not creating any revenue loss.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for hearing. It noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity before the CIT(A) and that the impugned order was illegal and bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a denovo hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal after noting that the assessee was not willing to pursue the appeal due to the application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the departmental representative did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under Sections 11/12 for a mere procedural lapse, such as the delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B. The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the audit report before the filing of the return of income, which is a significant compliance. It further reasoned that the assessment proceedings are considered pending until the appeal is heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. Therefore, the principle that the requirement for filing the audit report is a procedural requirement, as laid down by the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mayur Foundation and Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, can be applied. The Tribunal also addressed the Revenue's contention regarding the FAA's power to condone delay, citing the Gujarat High Court's view in Indian Panel Board Manufacturer that Section 119(2)(b) provides an additional remedy and does not take away the appellate remedy. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the FAA and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after considering the audit report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the sources of the cash deposits. The Tribunal examined the "Rin Pustikas" and other documentary evidence, including invoices and payment vouchers for crop sales, and found that the assessee-family did own three lands aggregating to 10.093 hectares during the financial year 2007-08. The Tribunal also found that the crop sales were to reputed businessmen and industries, and the invoices and payment vouchers were examined and found to be without flaw. Regarding the second source, the Tribunal noted that the bank passbook confirmed cash withdrawals totaling Rs. 6,81,500/-. The Tribunal further observed that a significant cash deposit of Rs. 7,10,000/- on 22.11.2007 was explained by immediate crop sale receipts during the preceding period. The cash availability statement also showed sufficient cash balance. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was not sustainable and ordered its deletion. The assessee succeeded in the appeal.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Citing Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, the ITAT adopted a justice-oriented approach, preferring substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Furthermore, in agreement with both the assessee and the revenue, and considering the principles of natural justice, the ITAT decided to remand the matter 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 previous ex-parte order. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and participate in future hearings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue remedies under the Vivad se Vishwas Yojana. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee can file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for sundry debtors, finding sufficient documentary evidence to support the assessee's claim. However, the Tribunal agreed with the AO regarding the addition for stock, as the assessee failed to provide any supporting details or documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the "sufficient cause" presented by the assessee, citing her age, ill health, and illiteracy. The appeals were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the "sufficient cause" presented by the assessee, citing her age, ill health, and illiteracy. The appeals were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication subject to payment of costs.