Loading ITAT cases…
55 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 2 and 19 days in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's changed status due to granted registration Under Section 12AA/12AB, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment to determine the correct total income, including all entitlements, and directed assistance for filing ITR-7 manually.
The Tribunal held that once the AO issues a notice under Section 143(2) for scrutiny assessment, he cannot subsequently assume jurisdiction to process the return under Section 143(1) for the same assessment year. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of all upward adjustments made in the Section 143(1) intimation, deeming it bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of membership fees and subscriptions was to be remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication. It also held that the disallowance of Rs. 3,85,448/- for leave encashment resulted in a double addition and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had demonstrated its registration for CSR activities with a valid registration number and that the donation was duly recorded. The assessee also undertook to provide all required information.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not meritorious. The assessee expressed a desire to participate in proceedings before the AO and undertook to comply with requisitions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted additional evidence (affidavits and KYC details) before it, which needed verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the sources for Rs. 3,75,000/- from Provident Fund withdrawal and savings, Rs. 6,00,000/- from his wife's commission income, and Rs. 3,00,000/- from his father's agricultural income. However, a small portion of the deposit remained unexplained.
The Tribunal found that the AO's compliance with the procedural requirements of section 143(1), specifically the provisos regarding intimation to the assessee and consideration of their response, was not discernible from the records. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 2 and 19 days in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's changed status due to granted registration Under Section 12AA/12AB, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment to determine the correct total income, including all entitlements, and directed assistance for filing ITR-7 manually.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to furnish documents was due to old age and the age of the documents. The AO was directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee was directed to be vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the source of the cash deposit as proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land. It noted that the land was not a capital asset under Section 2(14), making any gain exempt under Section 10(37), and alternatively, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54B due to reinvestment in another agricultural land. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 69A was not warranted.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to furnish documents was due to old age and the age of the documents. The AO was directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee was directed to be vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the department had mistakenly filed a duplicate appeal and that it was infructuous. Both parties agreed that the duplicate appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after examining the assessee's evidences and granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after examining the assessee's evidences.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's status as a 'charitable-cum-religious' entity. It found merit in the claim for benefit under Section 80G(5B) and agreed to remand the matter to the CIT(E) for a deeper analysis of expenses.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and that the assessee was making efforts to collect documents. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal first addressed Ground No. 2 concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings. The revenue provided evidence of service of notice under section 148A(b), and the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) expressed satisfaction and requested not to press this ground. Consequently, Ground No. 2 was dismissed as non-pressed/withdrawn. Regarding the delay of 122 days in filing the first appeal, the Tribunal, considering the medical reports and affidavit submitted by the assessee, found "sufficient cause" for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, the Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach and condoned the delay. On the merits of the case, both the assessee's AR and the revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (DR) agreed to a remand. The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by the earlier order, with a caution to the assessee to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on a liberal and justice-oriented approach, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for necessary adjudication, given the CIT(A) did not decide on merits and the AO made a best judgment assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application. The assessee had applied for final approval after obtaining provisional approval, and the rejection on the grounds of prior exemptions was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant final approval if the assessee was otherwise eligible.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee, especially considering the additional evidence filed. Both parties agreed that the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable because the show-cause notice issued by the AO contained a charge from Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAB. This was considered a grave illegality.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate her claim of agricultural income with documentary evidence. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the addition of unexplained income was found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of receiving Rs. 13,21,000/- in cash from the sale of property, despite the registered sale deed showing Rs. 4,10,000/-, was not substantiated. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the purchaser's statements and the lack of supporting evidence for the higher cash payment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had merely extracted the AO's observations without discussing the voluminous evidence filed by the assessee. Considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the commission payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was upheld due to the lack of substantiation for the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied all three conditions stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 6/2022. These conditions were: (i) the return of income for AY 2020-21 was filed on or before the due date under Section 139(1); (ii) the assessee company opted for taxation under Section 115BAA in the 'Filing Status' of Part A-GEN of the ITR-6; and (iii) Form 10-IC was filed electronically before 30.06.2022. The Tribunal found that the assessee met these criteria, including filing the return on 09.02.2021 (before the due date of 15.02.2021), opting for Section 115BAA in the return, and filing Form 10-IC on 22.03.2021. Consequently, the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned as per the circular. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of the concessional tax rate of 22% under Section 115BAA to the assessee and recompute the tax accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to represent its case was due to issues with notice delivery via email, and the assessee possessed documents to explain the deposits. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT condoned the 1,100-day delay, finding 'sufficient cause' based on the reasons provided by the assessee's AR and applying Section 253(5) and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing and is directed to remain vigilant.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and to pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant, ensure participation in hearings fixed by the AO, and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to comply would give the AO liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT condoned the 1,100-day delay, finding 'sufficient cause' based on the reasons provided by the assessee's AR and applying Section 253(5) and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing and is directed to remain vigilant.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred and the delay of three years could not be condoned. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be unbelievable and lacking foundation, referring to it as a 'blame game culture' and an 'alibi with no basis'. The Tribunal noted that the previous tax consultant had not advised filing an appeal, indicating knowledge of the order. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee failed to provide any assistance to the Pr. CIT during the Section 263 proceedings, not even replying to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the Pr. CIT correctly passed the order based on the available record, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no grounds to set aside the Pr. CIT's order on merits, as the assessee had not demonstrated its incorrectness or illegality. Therefore, the appeal was rejected both on the issue of being time-barred and on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the transaction involved the assessee giving a loan, not receiving it as income. The Tribunal noted that the initial loan given by the assessee to Amit Singhania was Rs. 5 lakhs, and the repayment received was Rs. 5.25 lakhs, with the excess being interest. The Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly treated the loan given as income in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice issued under Section 142(1) on February 19, 2021, and was therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The Tribunal found strong merit in the assessee's submissions. Firstly, the notice was issued during the exceptional period of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requiring compliance within a short span of five days was considered a reasonable situation for relaxation from penalty. While the CIT(A) suggested e-proceedings, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties faced by the public during the pandemic and accepted the assessee's inability to file a reply. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not supplied the requested documents and material, which also had force and contributed to the assessee's inability to comply. Referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful, but requires judicial discretion considering all circumstances, especially in cases of bona fide belief or technical breaches. Consequently, the Tribunal found a case of 'reasonable cause' as contemplated under Section 273B and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. The assessee succeeded in all appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the short notice period. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide necessary documents, contributing to the non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the short notice period. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide necessary documents, contributing to the non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice issued under Section 142(1) on February 19, 2021, and was therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The Tribunal found strong merit in the assessee's submissions. Firstly, the notice was issued during the exceptional period of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requiring compliance within a short span of five days was considered a reasonable situation for relaxation from penalty. While the CIT(A) suggested e-proceedings, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties faced by the public during the pandemic and accepted the assessee's inability to file a reply. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not supplied the requested documents and material, which also had force and contributed to the assessee's inability to comply. Referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful, but requires judicial discretion considering all circumstances, especially in cases of bona fide belief or technical breaches. Consequently, the Tribunal found a case of 'reasonable cause' as contemplated under Section 273B and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. The assessee succeeded in all appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice issued under Section 142(1) on February 19, 2021, and was therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The Tribunal found strong merit in the assessee's submissions. Firstly, the notice was issued during the exceptional period of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requiring compliance within a short span of five days was considered a reasonable situation for relaxation from penalty. While the CIT(A) suggested e-proceedings, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties faced by the public during the pandemic and accepted the assessee's inability to file a reply. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not supplied the requested documents and material, which also had force and contributed to the assessee's inability to comply. Referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful, but requires judicial discretion considering all circumstances, especially in cases of bona fide belief or technical breaches. Consequently, the Tribunal found a case of 'reasonable cause' as contemplated under Section 273B and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. The assessee succeeded in all appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice issued under Section 142(1) on February 19, 2021, and was therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The Tribunal found strong merit in the assessee's submissions. Firstly, the notice was issued during the exceptional period of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requiring compliance within a short span of five days was considered a reasonable situation for relaxation from penalty. While the CIT(A) suggested e-proceedings, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties faced by the public during the pandemic and accepted the assessee's inability to file a reply. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not supplied the requested documents and material, which also had force and contributed to the assessee's inability to comply. Referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful, but requires judicial discretion considering all circumstances, especially in cases of bona fide belief or technical breaches. Consequently, the Tribunal found a case of 'reasonable cause' as contemplated under Section 273B and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. The assessee succeeded in all appeals.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing the medical certificate and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal also noted that Section 253(5) of the Act empowers it to admit appeals after the expiry of the prescribed time if there is a sufficient cause. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and to pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and participate in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued for compliance, including the show cause notice for penalty, were all issued during the COVID-19 period, a time of national lockdown. It was considered impossible for the assessee to comply with these notices under such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee had already offered the profit from the F&O transactions in its audited P&L account. The AO's addition was therefore a double addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no error or perversity in the order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee had already offered the profit from the F&O transactions in its audited P&L account. The AO's addition was therefore a double addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no error or perversity in the order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted substantial relief by restricting the addition to the profit element of the bogus purchases, following a High Court judgment. The assessee's AR stated they had no further major grievances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee had already offered the profit from the F&O transactions in its audited P&L account. The AO's addition was therefore a double addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no error or perversity in the order.
The Tribunal held that TDS was attracted for a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- as the assessee failed to deduct it. However, for a payment of Rs. 9,00,000/-, the Tribunal found that the purchase and initial payment were made before the applicability of Section 194-IA.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices, as contemplated under Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found strong merit in the assessee's submissions. Firstly, the notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic, a period of exceptional difficulty, and the short compliance period of 4-5 days was unreasonable. The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitations from 15.03.2020 onwards due to the pandemic. Secondly, the Tribunal acknowledged the force in the argument that the AO did not supply the required documents, making it impossible for the assessee to comply. Even if an email was sent, the dates mentioned (13.03.2020 and 17.03.2020) were around the period when the Supreme Court granted extensions. Relying on the principle laid down in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), which states that penalty should not be imposed for a technical or venial breach or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalties. The assessee succeeded in all appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices, as contemplated under Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found strong merit in the assessee's submissions. Firstly, the notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic, a period of exceptional difficulty, and the short compliance period of 4-5 days was unreasonable. The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitations from 15.03.2020 onwards due to the pandemic. Secondly, the Tribunal acknowledged the force in the argument that the AO did not supply the required documents, making it impossible for the assessee to comply. Even if an email was sent, the dates mentioned (13.03.2020 and 17.03.2020) were around the period when the Supreme Court granted extensions. Relying on the principle laid down in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), which states that penalty should not be imposed for a technical or venial breach or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalties. The assessee succeeded in all appeals.