Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of genuine physical and financial hardships as "sufficient cause" under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act. Acknowledging that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not passing a reasoned order, the Tribunal remanded all four appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that a proper hearing opportunity be provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee had no obligation to pay advance tax in this scenario. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
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 Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn.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 assessee, Maheshwari Samaj Sanyogita, is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the objects of the assessee society are charitable in nature and that the income generated was applied for charitable purposes. The reasoning likely focused on the fact that the assessee's activities and utilization of funds aligned with the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal likely distinguished the present case from situations where income is not genuinely applied for the stated charitable objects. The ratio decidendi is that an institution with established charitable objects, which demonstrably applies its income for such objects, should be granted exemption under Section 11, provided all statutory conditions are met. The operative direction would be to grant the exemption as claimed by the assessee, thereby deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee does not wish to pursue the appeals and wants to withdraw them. The Departmental Representative has no objection to the withdrawal of appeals. The Tribunal allows the withdrawal of appeals.
The tribunal referred to the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 which states that appeals involving a tax effect of less than Rs. 60 lakhs should not be filed. In this case, the tax effect was Rs. 45,50,377, which is below the prescribed limit. The revenue conceded that the case did not fall under any exception.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the merits, violating the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6). Considering the assessee's reasons for non-prosecution and the need for proper adjudication, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, decided to remand the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, without causing prejudice to the revenue, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide. It noted that the CIT(A)'s order was not on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the stated medical reasons. Finding that the original assessment order was ex parte and not decided on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock was not a separately identifiable investment but was part of the assessee's business stock. Since the excess stock was found to be an outcome of suppressed business income over the years and was not identifiable distinctly from the recorded stock, Section 69B was not applicable. Consequently, the income was to be treated as business income taxed at the normal rate, not at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the nexus between borrowed funds and loans advanced, which is a condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 57. The Tribunal found that the income was under-reported and the penalty under Section 270A was rightly levied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposit with proper evidence. The explanations regarding business income and bank withdrawals were found to be unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed expenses, some fuel expenses must have been incurred. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for an empirical analysis to ascertain the actual fuel cost.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order and the intimation order were not proper. The Tribunal noted that the return of income and Form 67 were both filed on December 31, 2023. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that there was a delay in filing Form 67 because the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) was July 31, 2023, was found to be an insufficient ground to deny the substantive benefit of FTC. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim was established with proof filed on the same date as the ROI, and the Revenue had not questioned the authenticity or genuineness of the FTC. The Tribunal found the issue to be covered by its own decision in ITANo.176/Ind/2024 and a decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in ITANo.747/Chd/2023 (Ashish Sood vs. DCIT Circle (1)-(1) Chandigarh). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the AO to grant due appreciation/credit for the FTC after verification of Form 67. The issue of opportunity of being heard was not expressly decided but implicitly addressed by the remand.
The Tribunal, in view of the submissions of both parties and upholding the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the earlier order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, holding that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause. It ruled that the Rs. 15,00,000/- entry in the bank account was a bank error, wrongly credited and immediately reversed, and therefore could not be considered unexplained income. The balance amount of Rs. 1,95,447/- was directed to be assessed as normal income.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both sides, the orders of the lower authorities, the principles of natural justice and fair play, and noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal held that the non-representation before the lower authorities was due to alleged non-receipt of notices. The remand is at the risk and responsibility of the assessee and is subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per case to the Income-tax Department through a suitable challan. The assessee is directed to submit proof of payment of cost to the AO. The AO is instructed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments, failing which the AO is at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities as per the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the deduction claim, considering the subsequent submission of account confirmations and correct PAN details by the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering 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 (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without a decision on merits, and that the AO's assessment order was also ex-parte. The assessee expressed readiness to provide necessary details and documents. The Tribunal held that restoring the matter to the AO would allow for a proper adjudication of the issues. The remand was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee was also directed to participate diligently and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of cost.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The assessee assured full cooperation, and the AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a proper hearing.
The Tribunal addressed two grounds of appeal. Regarding the first ground, concerning the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), the Tribunal held that the provision is statutory and automatic. The difference between the actual purchase consideration and the stamp duty valuation is treated as taxable income of the purchaser. The assessee's argument that purchasing from a reputed listed company exempts it from this provision was rejected as it lacks acceptance in the statutory text. Consequently, the first ground of appeal was dismissed. For the second ground, concerning the failure to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2), the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific request made to the DRP. While the revenue argued that such a request should only be made to the AO, the Tribunal noted that Section 144C(2) requires objections to be filed with both the DRP and the AO. Therefore, the request to the DRP could be construed as a request to the AO. In the interest of substantial justice and to ensure proper determination of fair market value, the Tribunal set aside this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO as contemplated under Section 50C(2) and decide the issue afresh. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that it is a settled principle that bank deposits linked to business activity cannot be treated entirely as income; only the income element should be taxed. Considering the assessee's business and transaction patterns, estimation of income is appropriate. The Tribunal applied a net profit rate of 12% on the gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts cannot be settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2024, which clarifies that appeals against penalties not related to the quantum of addition, such as Section 271A, require separate settlement and are not covered by the scheme. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence of a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts, despite having a turnover exceeding the prescribed limit under Section 44AA for AY 2010-11. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld. The Tribunal found no factual or legal infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order and therefore dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical issues involving the same lenders. It held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68, and the additions were liable to be deleted in line with the principle of consistency.
The ITAT dismissed the ground related to depreciation as not pressed. Regarding the disallowance of hire charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order which restricted the disallowance to 30% of the amount disallowed by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's age, unfamiliarity with electronic communication, and the demise of her earlier counsel. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. Considering the assessee's request for a fresh adjudication and the revenue's consent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee is cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.