Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the penalty orders were levied while quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer wrongly assumed the assessee's lack of interest. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the penalty issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty orders were levied while quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer wrongly assumed the assessee's lack of interest. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the penalty issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty orders were levied while quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer wrongly assumed the assessee's lack of interest. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the penalty issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee is a "Dargah" and its Secretary-authorized representative did not diligently pursue the matters, and the impugned orders were not served by speed post. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite opportunities. However, considering the nature of the issues, non-appearance, the fact that the matter pertains to a "Dargah", and the Secretary's non-compliance, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand all three matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. The assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each appeal, totaling Rs. 6,000/-, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, with proof of deposit to be produced before the Assessing Officer before commencement of proceedings on remand. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the department itself had issued notices under Section 153C of the Act, thereby giving effect to the High Court's decision, even though they had challenged it. Consequently, the department's appeals were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), relying on a Supreme Court judgment. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(AO) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed additional evidence with complete details explaining the source of the cash deposit. Considering this evidence crucial to the additions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal returned the issues to the AO for de novo assessment after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that even though the assessee failed to appear, the CIT(A) did not deal with the merits of the case. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E), NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits even in ex-parte orders. Accordingly, the appeal was restored to the file of CIT(E), NFAC for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), relying on Supreme Court judgments regarding liberal interpretation in cases of delay. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the issues were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the delay was unintentional and due to a reasonable cause related to email communication issues. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, finding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing due to circumstances like the Covid-19 pandemic.