Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that one of the two appeals filed by the same party against a single order is not maintainable and dismissed the second appeal on this ground. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to provide necessary information and documents despite opportunities, and while the CIT(E) followed principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh disposal on all issues except the RPT Act registration, with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on the applicant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to the counsel's bonafide mistake. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and cure the defects.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, albeit with costs, considering the applicant is a society and the issues are of significance. However, due to the applicant's failure to provide necessary documents to demonstrate the genuineness of its activities, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the 281-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the communication error (email ID spelling mistake). It held that the ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard and decide the issues on merits in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether the principal amount of the loans were accommodation entries was not yet decided for the relevant years. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the set-off of the disallowed interest against the assessee's unclaimed interest income.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had declared the income from commodity transactions in his return and offered it for taxation, it could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal relied on the principle that oral evidence, if not rejected with contrary evidence, should be considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding their former counsel. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from the bank, if explained as business expenditure, cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A without supporting evidence. It also found that adding a percentage of contract receipts and interest income already offered for taxation amounts to double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the Department had subsequently issued a notice under Section 153C for the same assessment year, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account by the lower authorities was not justified. Consequently, the addition of profit based on an estimated gross profit rate was also deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including loan documents and details of accumulated income, to justify the cash deposits. The lower authorities had rejected these explanations without proper reasoning. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the application afresh upon the assessee producing the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and other required documents.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the assessee's plea of being unaware of the proceedings due to their consultant's lapse. Considering that the matter should be decided on merits, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be said to have failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The department did not produce any incriminating material to suggest concealed facts regarding the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that one of the two appeals filed by the same party against a single order is not maintainable and dismissed the second appeal on this ground. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to provide necessary information and documents despite opportunities, and while the CIT(E) followed principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh disposal on all issues except the RPT Act registration, with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on the applicant.