Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal, in view of the submissions made by both the assessee and the revenue, and having regard to the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter at the AO's level. 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 the hearings fixed by the AO, and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to do so would empower the AO to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal is disposing of a bunch of five appeals, three by the assessee and two by the revenue, due to identical facts and issues. The appeals are directed against orders of the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders passed by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under Sections 11/12 for the mere delay in filing the Audit Report in Form No. 10B. The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the audit report is a procedural requirement, and courts have held that an assessee cannot be denied the benefit to which it is entitled due to procedural contraventions. The Tribunal drew support from the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, which held that the provision about furnishing the auditor's report along with the return is procedural and directory, and substantial compliance should suffice, meaning the report should be available to the AO by the time assessment is taken up. The Tribunal further clarified that assessment proceedings are considered pending until the appeal is heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, citing CIT vs. Mayur Foundation. Therefore, even though the audit report was filed after the AO's intimation under Section 143(1), it was filed while the appeal was pending before the ITAT, meaning the assessment had not reached finality. Consequently, the principle that the requirement for filing the audit report is procedural could be applied. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering the audit report filed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and the inability of the legal heir to represent the deceased assessee adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the assessment and penalty appeals back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation regarding non-prosecution due to non-receipt of notices. It was held that restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh adjudication would be in the interest of natural justice and would not prejudice the revenue.
The Tribunal is disposing of a bunch of five appeals, including three by the assessee and two by the revenue, due to identical parties and underlying facts/issues. The appeals are quantum appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC dismissing the assessee's first appeal on the grounds of non-prosecution and non-filing of Form No. 35 was not a proper order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the first appeal manually on 27.01.2010 to the CIT(A), Indore, under the then-prevailing physical mode. Subsequent proceedings, including replies, remand reports, and further submissions, were conducted by the CIT(A), Indore. The migration of the appeal to the Faceless System (CIT(A), NFAC) likely resulted in the loss or unavailability of these earlier proceedings' records. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the order was arbitrary and unjust. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A), NFAC's order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A), NFAC to consider all material, provide full opportunities to the assessee, and potentially call for a fresh remand report. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The issue of the merits of the additions made by the AO was left undecided by the CIT(A), NFAC and consequently by the ITAT in this order.
The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and the inability of the legal heir to represent the deceased assessee adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the assessment and penalty appeals back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the payment of income tax of Rs. 2,16,50,650/-, though relatable to AY 2013-14, is an application to charitable purposes for the purpose of Section 11(1)(a) in AY 2014-15. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that Section 11(1B) is a deeming provision for taxing unutilized income and does not signify a default or diversion of funds for non-charitable use. The adverse observations by the lower authorities were considered mis-conceived and rejected. The Tribunal respectfully followed the pre-existing view of Hon'ble Courts, which have held that income tax payment is necessary for the existence and preservation of a trust. The AO is directed to allow the claim. The tax demand of Rs. 84,72,830/- and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, which arise from the disallowed application, would consequently be deleted or adjusted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and the inability of the legal heir to represent the deceased assessee adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the assessment and penalty appeals back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the original appeal was filed against the rejection of registration. Since the registration was subsequently granted, the appeal became infructuous. The assessee's counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal.