Loading ITAT cases…
109 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. Considering the assessee's medical condition and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the "Impugned order" was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to significant delays in hearing dates and the assessee's inability to attend the first hearing due to COVID-19. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly assumed jurisdiction and issued statutory notices. The assessee's claim of no incriminating material was found to be baseless. The additions made by the AO were upheld.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned assessment order was not adjudicated on merits. It was also found that the "impugned order" by the CIT(A) was not on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the assessee cooperating with the department and not going into "slumber mode" when notices are issued.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly assumed jurisdiction and issued statutory notices. The claim of no incriminating material was found to be baseless, and the proceedings under section 153A and 144 were deemed valid. The additions made under section 69A were also upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file returns in response to notices under Section 153A and did not comply with subsequent notices. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal, finding that the AO correctly assumed jurisdiction and issued statutory notices.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish a plausible explanation and supporting documentary evidence for the cash deposits. Consequently, the cash deposits were treated as unexplained money and added to the assessee's total income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had eventually obtained the necessary documents to set up their defense. The lower authorities had considered the evidence and arguments presented. The appeals were dismissed as the assessee's grounds lacked merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's AR demonstrated that commission/contract receipts were already recorded in the books of account, contradicting the basis for two of the AO's additions. For the third addition, the assessee sought time to compile documents. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case back to the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to retrieve old records and make a proper presentation on merits.
The Tribunal noted that both the lower authorities' orders (Assessing Officer and CIT(A)) were ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits. The assessee failed to provide explanations or cooperate. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis.
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, despite initial claims of not receiving documents, later admitted to having obtained them. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the assessee's contentions regarding natural justice and the AO's basis for additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and non-provision of documents was not substantiated. The AO correctly assumed jurisdiction and issued statutory notices. The additions made were based on information unearthed during the search.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions arbitrarily without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, finding that the AO had correctly assumed jurisdiction and that the claim of no incriminating material was baseless.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, expecting cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, expecting cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits. The Tribunal set aside the "impugned order" and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh adjudication on merits, subject to payment of cost by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, expecting cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative submitted that incriminating materials were not provided initially but are now available. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not attended hearings or furnished replies before the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the first appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the impugned order were not decided on merits and lacked due process. It directed the AO to pass a fresh order after providing all necessary documents and affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to prove the source of the income. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, in view of the principle of natural justice and noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prayer to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication and the revenue's agreement with this prayer, with a condition that the assessee should not seek unnecessary adjournments. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to participate diligently in the hearings. The issue of the validity of the Section 250(6) compliance and the merits of the Section 80P deduction were effectively left undecided by the ITAT, as the matter was sent back to the first appellate authority. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, taking into account the submissions of both the assessee and the revenue, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed copies of "Registered Agreements" and "Registered Sale-Deeds" and argued that there was a time gap between these documents. The assessee contended that the conditions laid down in the first and second provisos to Section 50C(1) were satisfied, and therefore, the valuation of the Stamp Authority as on the date of the agreement should be adopted. Furthermore, the assessee argued that the difference between the actual sale consideration and the Stamp Authority's valuation on the agreement date was within the permissible limit of 5% as per the third proviso to Section 50C(1). The Tribunal directed the AO to give proper opportunities to the assessee, consider the entire submissions regarding Section 50C, especially the first and third provisos, and pass a fresh order. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the AO. The issue of whether the first proviso to Section 50C was applicable and the correct computation of LTCG was expressly remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act, which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after the expiry of the prescribed time if there is a sufficient cause. It also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing the preference for substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the CIT(A)'s order might not have fully complied with Section 250(6) and that the assessment order was ex-parte. Therefore, to uphold the principle of natural justice and without causing prejudice to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,500/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the "Prime Minister National Relief Fund", as a pre-condition for availing the benefit of fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate diligently in the proceedings before the AO, and the AO was instructed to give a fresh opportunity of hearing and pass an order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs.
The Tribunal, after considering various judicial precedents, concluded that the companies associated with Shri Sharad Darak (from whom the loan was allegedly received) were neither paper nor shell companies. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided some details and that the cash deposits were claimed to be from genuine sales recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not rejected the books of account.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the CIT(E) had provided two opportunities, and the assessee had admittedly filed a reply to the second notice, which was acknowledged. However, the CIT(E) deemed the reply incomplete and rejected the application. The Tribunal noted the assessee's willingness to make further submissions. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed that the CIT(E) shall grant necessary opportunities to the assessee, and the assessee shall avail them. The CIT(E) is to pass orders judiciously without being influenced by the earlier order. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary decision was to remand the matter.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was not warranted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had taken a total loan of Rs. 8,35,000/- from Shri Amit Jagdish Choudhary during the financial year 2016-17 through multiple transactions. While the AO treated only the first transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained, he accepted the remaining nine transactions aggregating to Rs. 3,35,000/- as explained. Crucially, the assessee regularly paid interest on the loan and deducted tax at source (TDS), which was remitted to the department. Furthermore, a repayment of Rs. 12,00,000/- was made against the outstanding balance through banking channels. The Tribunal found that the repayment through banking channels strongly indicated that the loan was genuinely taken. Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, Ambe Tradecorp Pvt. Ltd., and PCIT Vs. Merrigold Gems (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that no addition was warranted and directed the deletion of the impugned addition. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the initial filing of the appeal was within the statutory time limit. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay was incorrect. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) under section 68 of the Act was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the companies providing the loans were not shell companies and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order and the subsequent order by CIT(A) were passed ex-parte and not on merits. It was noted that there might have been a breach of natural justice due to issues with the service of notices. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the CIT(E) had provided two opportunities, and the assessee had admittedly filed a reply to the second notice, which was acknowledged. However, the CIT(E) deemed the reply incomplete and rejected the application. The Tribunal noted the assessee's willingness to make further submissions. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed that the CIT(E) shall grant necessary opportunities to the assessee, and the assessee shall avail them. The CIT(E) is to pass orders judiciously without being influenced by the earlier order. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary decision was to remand the matter.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and delaying tactics at both the assessment and appellate stages. However, considering the serious nature of additions and the need for a determination on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and delaying tactics at both the assessment and appellate stages. However, considering the serious nature of additions and the need for a determination on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 218 days in filing the appeal, stating that the delay was due to compelling personal reasons and not intentional. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause due to medical reasons. The Tribunal also held that the order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte due to non-representation by the assessee, also attributed to bad health.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of jurisdiction was raised before the CIT(A) but not explicitly adjudicated. Recognizing jurisdiction as a threshold issue, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of the jurisdictional question.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under section 69 were not supported by legally sustainable evidence. The seized documents did not belong to the assessee, lacked essential details, and there was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not confronted with a key statement. The characteristics of a hundi transaction were not met.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not contain the assessee's complete name, address, PAN, or signature, nor were they found in his possession. Furthermore, the assessee was not confronted with the statement of Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence for a tripartite arrangement in the alleged hundi transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised specific factual and legal contentions before the CIT(Appeals) but the appeal was disposed of ex parte due to non-prosecution. Recognizing that the issues involved substantial additions requiring adjudication on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment and addition were made without a comprehensive examination of the assessee's explanations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration to examine the validity of reassessment and the credits in the bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's sole grievance was the addition of Rs. 1,26,037/- made by the AO under Section 69A. The Tribunal noted that the assessee initially filed an appeal to the CIT(A) on 23.09.2021 against the AO's order, which the CIT(A) dismissed on 23.03.2023 as time-barred. While the assessee's AR argued that the appeal was against the AO's rectification order dated 01.09.2021 and not the assessment order dated 25.11.2019, the Tribunal found that even if this were accepted, there was no apparent mistake in the assessment order concerning the addition of Rs. 1,26,037/- under Section 69A. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of Section 154 is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit a review of the order or an investigation into facts. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer Vs. Volkart Bros. (82 ITR 50), the Tribunal stated that a mistake must be obvious and patent, not requiring a lengthy process of reasoning. The AO's addition under Section 69A was based on unexplained bank deposit entries, which remained unexplained by the assessee at the assessment stage. The Tribunal concluded that assailing this action required explaining the source of deposits with clinching evidence, which is beyond the scope of Section 154. The assessee failed to demonstrate how the addition constituted a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the AO's rectification order dated 01.09.2021 not granting rectification for the addition, and consequently dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and delaying tactics at both the assessment and appellate stages. However, considering the serious nature of additions and the need for a determination on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 69B cannot be applied as the excess stock, being part of the overall business stock, is not separately identifiable. It further noted that in similar cases, excess stock found during surveys was treated as business income, not unexplained investment.
The Tribunal, considering the Covid-19 pandemic context, the assessee's claim of not receiving an effective opportunity of hearing, and the substantial quantum of additions, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It held that the issues involved required fresh examination at the Assessing Officer's level due to the circumstances, including the Covid-19 period and lack of effective opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the circumstances including the Covid-19 period and lack of effective hearing, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the accountant's departure. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the circumstances including the Covid-19 period and lack of effective hearing, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the additions.