Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard during both assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard and that the Ld. CIT(A) is obligated to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the grounds of appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee opts for and complies with the VSVS, the pending appeal becomes infructuous. The CIT(A) erred in passing an order on merits without affording an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without sufficient time and opportunity for the assessee, and without a speaking order on merits. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A) order and restore the matter for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the lower authorities, despite notices being issued. However, considering the assessee's counsel's undertaking to cooperate and provide details if an opportunity is granted, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO).
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and that the Designated Authority had issued relevant forms. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the tribunal considered the appeal to have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard and that the Ld. CIT(A) is obligated to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the grounds of appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that the documents claimed to have been filed by the assessee before the AO were not referred to by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the grounds to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO regarding the documents filed by the assessee.
The assessee opted to settle the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal became infructuous and was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee and failed to pass a speaking order on merits. The order was dismissed in a summary manner, violating Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the submissions and call for a remand report from the Assessing Authority regarding the issue of gross receipts.
The Tribunal noted the lack of representation and the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- was based on conjecture and guesswork, not on material evidence. Considering the assessee's nature of work, the explanation for keeping reasonable cash at home for expenses and the practice of wives saving cash were found acceptable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the Department had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous and treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had been issued a certificate. The respondent did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the lower authorities, despite notices being issued. However, considering the assessee's counsel's undertaking to cooperate and provide details if an opportunity is granted, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was in violation of Section 250(6) of the IT Act, as it failed to provide a speaking order on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits and without passing a speaking order, which is a statutory duty under section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits, dismissing the appeal solely on non-prosecution, which violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter is remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had passed an order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee and failed to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.