Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had acquired a right in the property which constituted a capital asset. The cancellation of the booking resulted in a capital loss, and the indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot revise an assessment order solely to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings or to change the section under which penalty is to be levied. Following Supreme Court precedent, the PCIT's power under Section 263 does not extend to directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings when the assessment order itself is not considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue on that specific ground.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a misunderstanding by the assessee's counsel. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, considering the additional evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the jurisdictional AO was not valid. The assessee resided in Jaipur, and the notices were issued by the ITO, Sikar. However, the judgment notes that the assessee has been living in Jaipur for many years and her address in the ITR from AY 2008-09 is of Jaipur. Despite this, the Tribunal did not find merit in the jurisdictional challenge. Regarding the addition under section 69A, the Tribunal agreed with the AO and CIT(A) that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was not plausible. The withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakh in April 2015 and its subsequent deposit in cash in November and December 2016, after keeping it at home for approximately 20 months, was considered highly improbable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, emphasizing that human probability is a significant factor. Therefore, the withdrawal was not accepted as the source of the cash deposits, and the amount was added as unexplained income under section 69A. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 795 days in filing the online appeal, acknowledging the assessee's contention of having filed a physical appeal within time. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines on condoning delays, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach and the principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It noted that refusing to condone delay could lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out. Given that the CIT(A) had not admitted the appeal and the assessment order was ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issue on merits after considering the assessee's evidence and submissions, and after giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not reflect on the merits of the dispute itself.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to properly discuss the grounds for condonation of delay and did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the sale value should not be considered as capital gain without deducting the cost of acquisition. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the sale consideration and cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the sale consideration and cost of acquisition needed verification. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) was not maintainable due to the delay in filing. The authorities do not have the power to condone such delays in the absence of a specific provision in the Act.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the sale value should not be considered as capital gain without deducting the cost of acquisition. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the sale consideration and cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, noting the CIT(A) had not properly considered it. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the evidence and submissions, while imposing costs on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order stated the assessee did not comply with hearing notices but also reproduced the assessee's submission that the cash deposit was considered in the hands of the partnership firm. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report and passed the order without considering the assessee's contention. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's ground regarding the ex-parte order passed without adequate opportunity. Considering that the lower authorities' orders were not on merits and the assessee raised a specific ground for an opportunity to submit evidence, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering the evidence and submissions. The assessee is directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The decision to restore the matter does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the first two notices but could not provide complete details for the third notice due to the Chairman's illness, supported by an affidavit and medical reports. Considering the principles of natural justice and the reasonable cause for the delay, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the issue of registration on its merits.