Loading ITAT cases…
49 orders · Page 1 of 1
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, providing one last opportunity for hearing.
The ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee. This was done considering the circumstances of illness and death, despite the assessee's lethargy.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was lethargic in pursuing the case despite multiple opportunities. However, to provide one last chance, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO and upheld the order of the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear and provide any substantiating submissions, leading to an ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities should not hinder substantial justice and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was lethargic in pursuing the case despite multiple opportunities. However, to provide one more chance, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and by violating principles of natural justice. The dismissal was based on the mode of filing, overlooking prior proceedings and opportunities.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity for hearing. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation and negligence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were within the scope of limited scrutiny as they aimed to verify if the belated return was filed to explain cash deposits. However, the addition on account of sundry debtors was deleted as the AO failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO and CIT(A) due to a communication lapse with their tax consultant. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid late is covered by the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the employer's contribution was wrongly clubbed with the employee's contribution and this issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the income offered on estimation of profit from the stock shortage does not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as contemplated in Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied is deleted.
The Tribunal decided to allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. The primary reason for this decision was that while the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide explanations, it was not evident from the CIT(A)'s orders whether proper notices were served to the assessee for the hearings. Additionally, no documentary evidence was provided by the assessee to counter the CIT(A)'s orders. Considering that the assessee is an organization promoted by the Government of Rajasthan for rural poverty alleviation, the Bench felt it appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing. The assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments and was expected to cooperate. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision to restore the matter does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently.
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted a portion of the addition due to a mistake in DLC valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the DLC rate and calculate the correct value of the property, stating that the department cannot take advantage of a computational mistake by the stamp duty authority.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash with credible evidence. The cash book and other documents produced during appellate proceedings were considered an afterthought and not reliable.
The Tribunal decided to allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. The primary reason for this decision was that while the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide explanations, it was not evident from the CIT(A)'s orders whether proper notices were served to the assessee for the hearings. Additionally, no documentary evidence was provided by the assessee to counter the CIT(A)'s orders. Considering that the assessee is an organization promoted by the Government of Rajasthan for rural poverty alleviation, the Bench felt it appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing. The assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments and was expected to cooperate. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision to restore the matter does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently.
The Tribunal decided to allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. The primary reason for this decision was that while the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide explanations, it was not evident from the CIT(A)'s orders whether proper notices were served to the assessee for the hearings. Additionally, no documentary evidence was provided by the assessee to counter the CIT(A)'s orders. Considering that the assessee is an organization promoted by the Government of Rajasthan for rural poverty alleviation, the Bench felt it appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing. The assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments and was expected to cooperate. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision to restore the matter does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently.
The assessee failed to file returns and respond to statutory notices from both the AO and the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal observed the assessee's lethargic approach but, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present arguments and evidence, decided to restore the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1288 days in filing the appeal, considering that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, as notices were not properly served. However, due to the ex-parte nature of the assessment order and lack of representation on merit before the CIT(A), the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal, including jurisdictional issues, procedural lapses in reopening the assessment, and the denial of capital loss. The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to substantiate its case before the AO and that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal based on available records. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, felt that the appeal should be restored to the file of the AO to decide afresh.
The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal on admission stage without considering the merits. The assessee contended that the tax was deducted and deposited in time, and any delay in filing TDS statements was a venial breach without loss of revenue. The assessee also argued that Section 234E was applicable only from July 1, 2012, and late fees could not be recovered if not collected at the time of delivering TDS statements.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was solely based on a private (registered) valuer's report, obtained immediately after the search, without any supporting incriminating material or corroborative evidence found during the search operation. The CIT(A) had relied on the judgment in CIT vs. Nishi Mehra, which held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a valuation report in the absence of incriminating or corroborative material pointing to undervaluation. The Revenue did not provide any contrary judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,39,76,229/-. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeals were dismissed. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal allowed the first two objections, stating that the Revenue erred in filing the appeal without authority of law and by accepting the CIT(A)'s finding that the reference was invalid. The technical objections (3 & 4) were not decided as the issue was decided on merits. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition without properly considering the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Relying on a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient material to explain the credits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. The addition was solely based on a private valuer's report, which was deemed insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action in reopening the assessment was in accordance with the law, as there were sufficient grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on Ground No. 2, stating that the denial of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was not justified. It also allowed Ground No. 3 regarding the addition of Rs. 35,36,100/-, deleting the addition entirely. Ground No. 4 concerning cash deposits was partly allowed, sustaining an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a firm run by two lady entrepreneurs, one facing medical issues, had multiple opportunities to present its case but failed to comply. The expenses were not properly substantiated, and virtual hearings were missed. However, considering it was the first year of operation and the assessee claimed to be deprived of justice due to non-examination of facts by the CIT(A), the matter was remanded back.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court precedent in a similar case (Jodhpur Development Authority), held that the predominant object of the assessee was for general public utility, and any profit earned from ancillary activities did not render it ineligible for charitable status. The CIT(E) was directed to grant registration.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the CIT(E) might be curable and that the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 14,87,800, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant deductions for two 'nallas' instead of one, at 20% of the DLC rate (10% for each nalla), based on the registered valuer's report and the DVO's comments. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the valuation of the boundary wall and tin shed at Rs. 73,935 as per the Sub-Registrar's sheet, and to grant relief for the 400 square yards of land acquired by JDA, as accepted by the DVO. For the addition of Rs. 1,66,889 on account of stamp duty and registration charges, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant relief of Rs. 1,00,000, considering the assessee's opening cash balance and current year income, and sustained the balance addition. The issue of reopening was not explicitly decided but implicitly accepted by proceeding to decide the merits.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee's AR submitted that due to the illness of the assessee's husband, the assessee could not appear. The tribunal, considering these reasons, decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and arguments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the rejection order was passed without proper opportunity and that the issues raised were curable. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his primary onus by providing a plausible explanation with supporting evidence like third-party confirmations and a registered Power of Attorney. The addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- was considered excessive.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including ledger accounts and an affidavit, considering the assessee's medical condition and reliance on her accountant. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the turnover and tax profit at 8% under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including ledger accounts and an affidavit, considering the assessee's medical condition and reliance on her accountant. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the turnover and tax profit at 8% under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts represented sales that were rightly offered for taxation by the assessee. The Tribunal found no defect in the stock or sales and noted that the AO had not reduced the sales from the turnover. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of the unsecured loans. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 to prove the genuineness of the transactions, identity, and creditworthiness of the lenders, considering the modus operandi of shell companies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including sales bills and VAT returns, to explain the cash deposits as business receipts. The AO's addition was based on suspicion rather than cogent reasons.
The Tribunal held that issuing post-dated cheques for the balance payment, even if not immediately encashed or detailed in the agreement, constitutes sufficient compliance for claiming deduction under Section 54F. The intention of the legislature is to encourage investment in residential property.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had elaborated on the issues and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the additions made under Section 43CA and for unexplained capital were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee's primary contention is that the transfer of disputed rights in the immovable property does not constitute a transfer for capital gains tax purposes because the cost of acquisition is indeterminate. The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of justice due to non-receipt of hearing notices by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The primary basis for the PCIT's revisionary action was the alleged erroneous allowance of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 due to salary payments to specified persons, drawing parallels with the assessment of AY 2017-18. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessment in AY 2017-18 was based on a survey conducted under Section 133A during the demonetization period, and the irregularities found pertained specifically to that period. Crucially, there was no such survey or adverse findings in the assessment year 2018-19. The AO in the current year had called for and examined specific details regarding salary payments and other information before accepting the returned income. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the current year, which was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's reliance on the earlier year's assessment, without considering the absence of similar adverse material in the current year, was deemed incorrect. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of depreciation rectification mentioned by the assessee as it was not the primary ground for appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of one day in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative was absent during the hearing and no submissions or evidence were produced. However, considering the assessee is a small private individual, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of actual investment or expenditure by the assessee, nor was any cash or foreign currency found during the search.
The Tribunal noted that the source of cash deposit of Rs. 9,85,000/- was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. However, considering the assessee is a small person working privately and the previous disallowance of expenses was deleted by the CIT(A), the bench decided to hear the appeal on merit.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the matter should be heard on merit rather than dismissed on technical grounds. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not advance arguments before the lower authorities and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of actual investment or expenditure by the assessee, nor was any cash or foreign currency found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of actual investment or expenditure by the assessee, nor was any cash or foreign currency found during the search.