Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh after the assessee provides the registration under the RPT Act and documents related to the genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in treating the returns as invalid solely on the ground that they were not filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal noted that the third proviso to Section 148, which disallows returns filed beyond the allowed period from being deemed as a return under Section 139, was inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Prior to this amendment, returns furnished under Section 148 were to be treated as returns required to be furnished under Section 139. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not required to furnish a return under Section 139(1) or 139(4C) as the department had not brought to its notice that the assessee's total income (without giving effect to Section 10) exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the authorities below erred in disallowing the claims for exemption under Section 10. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The issue of charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not expressly decided as the primary issue of exemption was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard and that the reasons for rejection were potentially curable. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present documents and arguments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While the CIT(E) rejected the applications, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was contingent on the assessee producing the Registration under the RPT Act, 1959.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. The assessee was ex-parte before both lower authorities, preventing her from presenting her defense. While it is the assessee's duty to appear before statutory authorities, the Tribunal believed the dispute should be decided on merits to ensure no rights are prejudiced without a proper hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing one more opportunity for hearing. The assessee was directed to submit all evidence and documents to support her case and not seek frivolous adjournments. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the sale of rural agricultural land is not a capital asset and thus exempt from tax. The Tribunal also observed that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that filing a return under Section 139(4) (belated return) is considered within the time allowed under Section 139. Relying on CBDT circulars and judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied solely on the basis of filing a belated return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present her case with documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB on the ground of non-genuineness of activities, citing issues like book entries for transactions, potential violation of Section 13(1)(c), siphoning of funds by trustees, and lack of verifiable details for purchases, distributions, bank statements, donation receipts, and activities. For Section 80G, the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily because registration under Section 12AB is a prerequisite, and the genuineness of activities remained unproven. The Tribunal, adopting a lenient view, acknowledged the assessee's plea for an additional opportunity to present documents and arguments before the CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and for the assessee to submit the demanded documents. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be independently adjudicated by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not sustainable as the case should have been initiated under Section 153C, given that incriminating material seized from another group related to the assessee. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh after the assessee provides the registration under the RPT Act and documents related to the genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the applications afresh once the assessee provides the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other required documents.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself. Consequently, the application and the appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee already holds 12A registration, implying charitable status, and considered the grounds for rejection to be curable. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with the tribunal explicitly stating that its decision should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the applications afresh once the assessee provides the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other required documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While the CIT(E) rejected the applications, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was contingent on the assessee producing the Registration under the RPT Act, 1959.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard and that the reasons for rejection were potentially curable. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present documents and arguments.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not legally valid as the assessee had neither claimed exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) nor STCL, and had paid taxes on the Short Term Capital Gain earned. Therefore, the grounds of appeal related to the validity of reopening were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO was time-barred, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding bad in law. Additionally, applying the principle of consistency, the Tribunal noted that a similar addition was not made for a co-owner of the property.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by admitting additional evidence without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Specifically, the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity to examine the evidence or cross-examine the assessee. This procedural lapse vitiated the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, but noted the assessee's casual approach and non-appearance. Since the matter was primarily one of fact, and no evidence was furnished, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.