Loading ITAT cases…
87 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte and not based on merits. The Tribunal found that the cost of acquisition for Long Term Capital Gain was not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause. For the assessment appeal, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68 by providing books of accounts, purchase and sale details, and stock registers. The spurt in sales was satisfactorily explained by auspicious festivals and the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was justified as the assessee failed to comply with notices despite opportunities. The argument regarding COVID-19 lockdown was not considered sufficient to excuse non-compliance.
The Tribunal agreed with the submissions made by the assessee's representative. It noted that the latest Form No. 26AS, as produced by the assessee, showed that the erroneous entry of interest of Rs. 8,24,485/- under Section 194A had been cancelled out by a negative entry of the same amount. A new entry for interest of Rs. 1,00,312/- was now appearing. The Tribunal found this to be in total agreement with the assessee's argument. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-process the intimation under Section 143(1) by taking into account the latest data available in Form No. 26AS and to delete the addition made in the assessee's case. The principle established is that automated processing systems should be corrected when subsequent data clarifies factual errors, especially when both parties agree to the correction based on updated departmental records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause. For the assessment appeal, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo). This was based on the similarity of the case to a previous matter involving the same land transaction and the submission of new evidence by the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to appear effectively and produce all required documents without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to appear effectively and produce all required documents without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the AO's application of Section 69A and Section 115BBE was justified due to the assessee's failure to explain the nature and source of substantial cash deposits and withdrawals. The lower appellate authority's order was also upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly. It deleted the addition under Section 2(22)(e) as it was wrongly made in the assessee-company's hands. The addition under Section 41(1) was also deleted as the conditions were not satisfied. The disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted due to sufficient non-interest bearing funds. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1 (Section 40A(3) disallowance), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had made cash payments attracting disallowance. While the assessee initially argued for genuine expenses, this was conceded as unsubstantiated. The defense based on Rule 6DD(j) for payments on Saturdays and Sundays was partially accepted. The Tribunal agreed that the payment of Rs. 41,730/- made on a Sunday to M/s Laxmi Iron qualified for the exception. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted to this extent, and the rest was upheld. Regarding Ground No. 2 (Bad Debts), the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed sufficient supporting evidence before the lower authorities or the ITAT. However, considering that Ground No. 3 was being remanded, the Tribunal decided to remand Ground No. 2 to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence. This would advance the cause of justice. Regarding Ground No. 3 (Unexplained Advances), the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's application for additional evidence. Both parties agreed that the issue should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's evidence and providing necessary opportunities. The Tribunal allowed this ground for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already made a voluntary addition of Rs. 2,70,000 in his return of income, reflecting a speculation business loss to be carried forward. The addition made by the AO in the intimation under Section 143(1) thus constituted a double addition. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the addition made by the AO was liable to be deleted. Regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the intimation bore a digital signature dated April 3, 2023, and the appeal was filed on April 12, 2023, which was within the statutory period of 30 days. Even if there was a delay, the Tribunal, considering the peculiar circumstances and the petty nature of the dispute, condoned the delay in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,70,000. The assessee succeeded in this appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty matter should be remanded to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the fact that the CIT(A) had already set aside the assessment order dated 24.09.2021 and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment on a de novo basis. Consequently, the penalty order, which was consequential to the addition made in the original assessment order, should also be subject to fresh adjudication by the AO. The Tribunal directed that before finalizing the penalty matter, the AO shall provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee and consider its submissions. The ratio decidendi is that when the foundation of a penalty (the assessment order) is nullified and remitted for fresh determination, the consequential penalty also requires a fresh determination based on the outcome of the revised assessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), holding that a notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is unenforceable and void ab initio. Proceedings initiated against a dead person are not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had conducted a meaningful discussion on the merits of the case. The dismissal was primarily due to the assessee's non-compliance, exacerbated by the death of its accountant.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration. This was based on the assessee's expressed intent to pursue the appeal with sincerity and the agreement of both the Ld. AR and Ld. DR.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, and instructed the assessee to be vigilant and participate in all hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was bad in law for want of personal hearing. However, the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, which the assessee failed to avail. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal further remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal noted that the main appeal against the assessment order was pending. Therefore, it held that the impugned rectification order should be set aside and the matter remanded. The CIT(A) was directed to first dispose of the main appeal against the assessment order.
अधिकरण ने पाया कि केंद्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड (सीबीडीटी) के नवीनतम परिपत्र के अनुसार, अधिकरण के समक्ष अपील दाखिल करने के लिए कर प्रभाव सीमा 60 लाख रुपये निर्धारित की गई है। वर्तमान मामले में, कर प्रभाव 40,60,140 रुपये है, जो निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- made by the AO in the intimation under Section 143(1) was a double addition. The assessee had already incorporated adjustments in its computation of total income, resulting in a net addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- before filing the return. The AO's action of making the same addition again in the intimation was therefore erroneous. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/-. Consequently, Grounds No. 5 and 6 of the assessee's appeal were allowed. The ratio decidendi is that adjustments made by the assessee in its return of income should not be re-added by the AO in a Section 143(1) intimation, as this leads to double taxation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It agreed that Section 156A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, mandates the AO to modify the demand payable by the assessee in conformity with the order passed by the NCLT under the IBC. The Tribunal noted that Section 156A, introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, aims to give effect to orders of the competent authority and modify demands accordingly, as explained in the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2022. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 156A is a mandatory provision that not only empowers but also casts a duty upon the AO to modify the demand notice to bring it in conformity with the NCLT order. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Das (supra) also supports this view. The Tribunal expressed confidence that the AO would act necessarily and fairly in conformity with Section 156A and the Supreme Court judgment, leaving no grievance for the assessee. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted full relief to the assessee through a subsequent rectification order, deleting the entire addition of 'notional interest income'. Therefore, the appeal became infructuous.
The ITAT condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case and directed the AO to allow the exemption under Section 54B.
The Tribunal noted that additional evidence was crucial and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to examine and verify these evidences on a denovo basis, considering the entire gamut of the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal against this dismissal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have made best efforts and was ready to submit further details. Agreeing with the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also instructed to participate diligently.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the present appeal as they had filed an application under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024". The department did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order failed to determine the real income of the assessee on merits and lacked proper opportunity for the assessee to explain. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits of the case. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily challenge the disallowances made by the CPC and sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on cash deposits but ultimately denied the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P without making any addition on the original issue of cash deposits. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., held that when the AO initiates proceedings under Section 147 on one issue but makes an assessment on a different issue, and when there are conflicting decisions from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view favourable to the assessee should be adopted. The Tribunal applied the principle laid down in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (SC) that if two reasonable constructions are possible, the one favouring the assessee must be adopted. Therefore, the Tribunal found the AO's order denying the deduction under Section 80P to be bad and illegal. The AO was directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee. Grounds 1 and 2 were allowed. Ground 3 was not adjudicated as Grounds 1 and 2 were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The reasoning was based on upholding the principle of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and then pass an appropriate order. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant, ensure participation in future hearings, and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee failed to comply, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the non-compliance with notices but considered the impact of the Covid period. While Section 272A(1)(d) mandates a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each default, the Tribunal reduced the total penalty to Rs. 10,000/- for all seven non-compliances, taking into account the circumstances and the Covid period.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that a lower GP margin alone is not sufficient to reject audited books of account without specific defects. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no material evidence to support the AO's rejection of the books.
The Tribunal found infirmities in the CIT(A)'s order, specifically the lack of rationale for the 5% disallowance and a potential misstatement regarding the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected for want of details. However, the assessee has now filed all the required evidences and is willing to represent its case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(E). Regarding the revenue's objection on the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29, the Tribunal referred to the rule and case law (Mascon Global Ltd. Vs. ACIT) to hold that a formal written application is not mandatory and the Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence for substantial cause. Therefore, the objection raised by the revenue was rejected. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to give necessary opportunities to the assessee for making representations, including filing additional evidences, and to pass a fresh order. For the appeal relating to Section 80G approval, the facts were identical, and the case was also remanded to the CIT(E) in the same terms for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical grounds of non-filing of documents, despite the assessee later providing the required evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s order but decided to allow one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of non-compliance due to circumstances beyond her control and the failure of her tax consultants. Given the principle of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected for want of details. However, the assessee has now filed all the required evidences and is willing to represent its case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(E). Regarding the revenue's objection on the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29, the Tribunal referred to the rule and case law (Mascon Global Ltd. Vs. ACIT) to hold that a formal written application is not mandatory and the Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence for substantial cause. Therefore, the objection raised by the revenue was rejected. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to give necessary opportunities to the assessee for making representations, including filing additional evidences, and to pass a fresh order. For the appeal relating to Section 80G approval, the facts were identical, and the case was also remanded to the CIT(E) in the same terms for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.