Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the production of additional evidence and considering it for disposal of the appeal. The appeal was not vitiated by illegality or irregularity for not calling for a report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim regarding incorrect email communication and the denial of natural justice. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary details.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee appeared ex-parte before the CIT(E) and thus could not present their defense. Although the assessee was found to be lethargic, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for hearing on merits. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and guesswork, without sufficient evidence to disprove the sale vouchers and confirmations provided by the assessee. The sale of agricultural produce through registered dealers in the State Agriculture Mandi was considered beyond doubt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee acknowledged the technical lapse in filing the wrong form for the 80G registration. Since the assessee's representative did not appear, the case was heard ex parte. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to correct the technical lapse, if legally permissible, and to provide an opportunity for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merits, emphasizing that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption that partners introduced SBNs (Specified Bank Notes) during the demonetization period was incorrect as the capital introduction predated the demonetization announcement. The Tribunal also noted that the books of accounts were not rejected and the cash flow statements of partners, though not perfect, provided some verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It also noted that the AO rejected the books of accounts but then relied on them for making additions, which is contradictory. The Tribunal stated that if books are rejected, additions cannot be made under Section 69A based on those books.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merits, emphasizing that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with opportunities given and did not file necessary documents. However, considering that necessary documents were not on file for adjudication on merits, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the assessee's bona fide belief acting on counsel's advice, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, land Acquisition vs. MSt. Katiji and Others. The matter regarding registration under section 12AB and consequential approval under section 80G was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a bank certificate was submitted confirming a withdrawal was indeed cash and not a cheque. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the availability of cash and decide the issue afresh.