Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised new grounds of appeal before it which were not raised before the CIT(A). The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of reopening the assessment and making an addition was not justified due to lack of proper verification and non-service of notice. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions and supporting documents.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty order was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions, which violated principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent attitude and non-compliance with notices. However, considering natural justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present arguments and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by a coordinate bench decision which allowed set off of brought forward specified business loss even if the return for the first year was filed late, as there was no such requirement in the law for that year.
The Tribunal found the assessee to be lethargic but acknowledged the lack of adequate opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee did not receive a fair chance to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the ex-parte dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions, which violated principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed without establishing actual concealment of income. The assessee had made a voluntary and bonafide disclosure, making the penalty unjustified.
The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is not a prerequisite for Section 80G approval. It also found that the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 80G(5) and directed the CIT(E) to grant approval.
The Tribunal noted that a previous penalty order for the same defaults had already been quashed by the Tribunal. Therefore, a second penalty for the same defaults was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that a one-day delay in filing the tax audit report, attributed to technical glitches on the portal, constitutes a venial breach and a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in considering the entire penalty dispute settled under VSVS without proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard on the unsettled issue. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) as the appeal was decided ex-parte without properly dealing with the adjournment application. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI, if not deposited by the due date as per the relevant Act, is disallowable. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed, stating that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act does not override the specific due dates for employee contributions under Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the pre-conditions for claiming exemption under Section 11(2), specifically the filing of Form 10 and audit in Form 10B within the prescribed due dates. Therefore, the claim for exemption under Section 11(2) was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to assessments under Section 143(1) as well. Therefore, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI deposited after the due date is sustained.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lethargy in pursuing the case but also acknowledged the potential breach of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the AO rejected the assessee's claim on technical grounds without verifying documents. The CIT(A) also failed to give specific findings on the evidence. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also decided to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI made late, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. The ground regarding Section 37(1) was not considered as it was not raised before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI made late, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. The ground regarding Section 37(1) was not considered as it was not raised before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed if the notices were not properly served on the assessee. Since there was no evidence of genuine efforts by the AO to serve the notices, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal decided to address the issue of the assessment order being passed against a deceased person first. It was an admitted fact that the AO received information about the death of Shri Ganesh Narain when a notice dated 31.12.2015 was returned unserved. The Tribunal held that once the AO became aware of the death, he was obligated to investigate or verify the legal heirs. The Tribunal referred to Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which states that proceedings against a deceased person can be continued against the legal representative. However, the AO failed to comply with the procedure laid down by law by passing an assessment order against a dead person without specifying the legal heirs. The Tribunal found this order not legally sustainable and quashed the impugned order. Considering the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and noting that Section 159 was not complied with and the assessment was ex parte, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to initiate proceedings against the legal representatives (already on record) from the stage when the AO became aware of the deceased's death, in accordance with Section 159. The legal heirs would be deemed the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was based on the specific facts and documents presented and might not serve as a precedent in other cases.
The Tribunal did not find adequate reason to admit the additional evidence as it could have been placed before the AO or CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the error in not deducting the sale proceeds from the block of assets was an inadvertent mistake and not a concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) on debatable issues are beyond its scope, especially when the assessee's objections are not properly addressed. The addition made by the revenue was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of sales incentives as the assessee failed to substantiate the nature of services rendered by the recipients, who were also related parties. The addition on account of low household expenses was also confirmed due to lack of satisfactory explanation. The partial disallowance of DG fuel expenses was confirmed as the assessee could not provide a satisfactory reply.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is a valid adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) when indicated in the audit report. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal confirmed that such contributions must be deposited on or before the due date for deduction.