Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on the temporary parking of IPO funds was inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant. Therefore, it allowed the interest income to be set off from the capital cost of the project.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present crucial evidence, including an ITSC order, before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision. As this evidence was presented before the ITAT, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with opportunities for the assessee to present all evidence and arguments.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the assessee could not be penalized for the delay in the approval of the gratuity trust by the department. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for allowing the deduction were met, as the assessee had no control over the funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 342 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, citing the death of the original assessee, the subsequent demise of the daughter who was handling the tax affairs, the appellant's age and vulnerability, and issues with electronic communication. The Tribunal relied on 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 admitted the appeal and proceeded with the hearing. Regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the documents submitted by the assessee to explain the investment were not filed before the AO and had not been examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in hearings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had responded to the notices, and since the assessment was completed under section 143(3) after considering the submissions, it could be inferred that the AO condoned the earlier defaults. The Tribunal also considered the affidavit explaining administrative constraints and the absence of key finance personnel as a reasonable cause under section 273B.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's plea was that the deposits represented business turnover already disclosed and audited. Crucially, for intervening AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, the AO had accepted similar explanations for bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present crucial evidence, including orders from the Income Tax Settlement Commission, before the CIT(A). To ensure justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) orders did not state the points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by section 250(6). Considering the totality of facts and the assessee's submission that necessary documents are now available, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee has demonstrated a "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing the medical exigencies faced by him and his family, and the fact that he is a differently-abled person. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others to adopt a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the substantive issue of leave encashment exemption, the Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee concerning exemption under Section 10(10B) for ex-gratia payment, which was not initially part of the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a differently-abled person, lacks technical knowledge, and became aware of the relief under Section 10(10B) after certain judicial pronouncements and representations. The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh examination at the AO level and therefore remanded the issue of ex-gratia to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The additional grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly exercised his power under Section 251 to remand the case back to the AO for extensive factual verification on a de novo basis. The Tribunal found no infirmities in the CIT(A)'s order and directed that all issues be examined afresh by the AO.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Regarding the rejection of applications, the Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code at the time of seeking provisional registration or approval cannot be a ground for denial of final registration under Section 12AB or approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the judicial view expressed in co-ordinate benches' decisions, specifically citing Sirseth Sarupchand Hukum Chand Charitable Trust Vs. CIT(Exemption) and Telangana State Chapter Indian Radiological & Imaging Association vs. Income Tax Officer (E). In these cited cases, it was held that the Revenue is also duty-bound to cross-verify details and point out errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemptions) in both appeals. The matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to permit the assessee to rectify the mistake in the application form and then consider the applications on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal observed that the assessee had deducted tax at a lower rate than prescribed under Section 194J for professional services. The lower authorities confirmed the demand due to non-compliance and lack of evidence from the assessee. However, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's submission that it is a local authority that did not get a proper opportunity, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's plea for condonation of delay was supported by sufficient cause, considering the communication issues and the unfortunate demise of their counsel. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be made to suffer due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's plea was that the deposits represented business turnover already disclosed and audited. Crucially, for intervening AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, the AO had accepted similar explanations for bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) orders did not state the points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by section 250(6). Considering the totality of facts and the assessee's submission that necessary documents are now available, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was an ex-parte order and the assessee's replies were not considered. The assessee had sought time to produce documents and filed an RTI application. The Tribunal, considering these facts, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present crucial evidence, including orders from the Income Tax Settlement Commission, before the CIT(A). To ensure justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an addition under section 50C cannot be made during the processing of a return under section 143(1). Such determination requires a detailed assessment under section 143(3) to allow for objections and reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the cause presented to be reasonable and not deliberately negligent. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B rests with the Commissioner of Income-tax and not the appellate authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order on quantum was ex-parte due to notices being sent to wrong email addresses. The penalty for non-compliance was reduced due to the short gap between notices.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order on quantum was ex-parte due to notices going to incorrect email IDs, warranting a remand for de novo adjudication. The penalty order was partly set aside, reducing the penalty amount.
The Tribunal found the impugned order to be improper, considering that a first appeal regarding the Quantum Assessment Order is pending. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance and failure to provide substantiating evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not adjudicated on merits and therefore set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct a "second stage inquiry" as mandated by the proviso to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This failure made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the revision by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits and without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's order could be considered ex-parte due to the lack of further opportunity after the assessee's reply. Upholding the principles of natural justice and considering that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide necessary opportunities of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and noting 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 an opportunity of hearing and to pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 2,500/- on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, with proof of payment to be submitted to the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of cost.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Regarding the rejection of applications, the Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code at the time of seeking provisional registration or approval cannot be a ground for denial of final registration under Section 12AB or approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the judicial view expressed in co-ordinate benches' decisions, specifically citing Sirseth Sarupchand Hukum Chand Charitable Trust Vs. CIT(Exemption) and Telangana State Chapter Indian Radiological & Imaging Association vs. Income Tax Officer (E). In these cited cases, it was held that the Revenue is also duty-bound to cross-verify details and point out errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemptions) in both appeals. The matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to permit the assessee to rectify the mistake in the application form and then consider the applications on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing "sufficient cause" as per Section 253(5) of the Act. The Tribunal noted the death of the assessee's counsel and the managing partner, leading to a lack of awareness about the pending proceedings and the need for timely filing. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, the Tribunal emphasized preferring "substantial justice" over "technical considerations" and adopted a justice-oriented approach. On merits, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee-firm came into existence on 15.06.2014 and, as a distinct taxable entity, could only claim deductions for expenses incurred during its period of existence. Claiming interest for a period prior to its formation was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's action, as confirmed by the CIT(A), and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
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, was not a proper order. The reasoning was based on the observation that the appeal's migration from the physical regime to the faceless system might have led to the omission or unavailability of earlier proceedings' records to the new CIT(A), NFAC. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the issues with the notices issued by the CIT(A), NFAC, including the fact that the delivery of the last three notices bounced. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A), NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A), NFAC was directed to provide full opportunities to the assessee to make submissions and to consider them judiciously. The assessee was also directed to make submissions without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The issue of the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- by the AO was expressly left undecided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's prayers and decided to remit the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. This includes re-computing capital gains for transactions at S.No. 2, 4 & 5 by referencing the DVO, examining cancellation evidences for transactions at S.No. 1 & 3 and re-computing capital gains, and allowing the cost of acquisition/improvement.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was made under section 144 and not on merits. The assessee, claiming to be illiterate and unaware of tax procedures, did not comply with notices. The Tribunal found the appellate order did not introduce new information and decided to set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11/12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in terms of the proviso to Section 12A(2). The Tribunal found no merit in the CIT(A)'s premise that processing under Section 143(1) does not constitute pending assessment proceedings. It reasoned that the proviso to Section 12A(2) refers to 'assessment proceedings' generally, and Section 143(1) itself is titled 'Assessment' and involves adjustments and the issuance of an intimation, thus remaining an assessment proceeding until the intimation is issued. The Tribunal also addressed the revenue's contention regarding the timing of the return filing versus registration, stating that the assessee had a strong expectation of registration and that the eligibility for exemption under the proviso to Section 12A(2) is paramount once its conditions are met. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO needs to verify if the assessee's objects and activities remained the same for AY 2018-19 as at the time of registration, and also to verify the application and accumulation of income for exemption under Sections 11/12. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for these verifications, with directions to allow exemption as admissible after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit necessary information. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had 'sufficient cause' due to circumstances beyond their control, including prolonged medical issues and severe financial distress. The appeals were admitted, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a 'sufficient cause' due to the assessee's physical and financial hardships. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A)'s orders were dismissible for non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, and thus, the matters were to be adjudicated afresh.
The Tribunal noted that previous decisions of the Tribunal have held that M/s Jay Jyoti India Private Ltd. and associated entities are not paper companies. Following these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's affidavit and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in view of the principle of natural justice and the agreement of both parties, remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and prioritizing substantial justice. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh adjudication to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits. A cost was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. A bona fide technical mistake in selecting the incorrect assessment year for Form No. 67 should not lead to denial of legitimate relief.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, including the email address belonging to an erstwhile counsel and lack of awareness of faceless proceedings, to be reasonable and supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the first appeal was bonafide and supported by sufficient cause, considering the medical condition of the accountant and the supporting documents. The dismissal of the appeal on hyper-technical grounds of delay was deemed improper.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under Sections 11/12 for the mere delay in filing the return of income under Section 139(4) and the belated filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B. Respectfully following the judicial decisions cited, particularly the ITAT, Indore Bench's decision in Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya and the ITAT, New Delhi's decision in Conference of Religious India, which relied on CBDT Instruction No. F.No. 173/193/2019-ITA-I dated 23.04.2019, the Tribunal found that the twin objections raised by the lower authorities were resolved in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were considered pending until the appeal was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, allowing for the procedural requirement of filing the audit report to be fulfilled during the appellate stage, as per the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Mayur Foundation. However, as the claim of exemption involves computation based on application and accumulation of income, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for recomputing the income and allowing exemption in accordance with law, after accepting the return and audit report filed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Assessing Officer, in compliance with the CIT(A)'s directions, verified the assessee's income and granted the TDS credit of Rs. 1,35,52,344/-. The assessee's authorized representative acknowledged that the relief sought in the appeal had already been granted by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated a "sufficient cause" for the delay due to genuine physical and financial hardships beyond their control. Citing judicial precedent emphasizing substantial justice over technical limitations, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and admit the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment order was pending before the CIT(A). Considering this, and the pendency of the quantum appeal, the Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned penalty order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal held that multiple notices issued for the same issue within a short period constitute a single continuing default, not separate offenses. Therefore, penalty cannot be levied for each notice individually.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee does not wish to pursue the appeals and sought permission to withdraw them. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and decided without proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had failed to produce documentary evidence at the first appellate stage but expressed willingness to do so if given another opportunity. The revenue had no objection to setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee received the assessment and impugned orders, they did not receive notices under sections 148, 142(1), and show cause notices. The Tribunal found a contradiction in this claim. Despite the lack of compliance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment, considering the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee's lack of education, unawareness of reassessment proceedings, and incorrect email address on the e-filing portal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.