Loading ITAT cases…
235 orders · Page 5 of 5
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits is not in accordance with law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments made through account payee cheques, even if the supplier is later unavailable, cannot be discarded as non-existent if no other reason for genuineness is provided by the Revenue. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in compliance with the statutory requirements and that the assessee's written submission was not considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices from the CIT(Appeals) due to a change in address, which was a sufficient cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law because the approval from the Principal CIT under Section 151(2) was not properly obtained or evidenced. Consequently, the assessment based on this reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal found the 90% disallowance to be excessive given the company's investment activities. It reduced the disallowance to 50% as a fair and reasonable measure.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee's counsel stated that the assessee no longer wished to press the appeal. The departmental representative did not object to this submission.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the payment was cleared on April 3, 2013, and did not impact the profit and loss of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal found the addition to be illegal and erroneous.
The Tribunal found it fair to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issues sought to be revised by the Principal CIT did not pertain to the reassessment order but to the original assessment order. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction was invoked beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with copies of the replies received from sundry creditors. These replies were the sole adverse material used for the addition.
The Tribunal found that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for verification of the TDS credit claim.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹3.25 crores as unexplained cash credits was incorrect, applying the ratio of a jurisdictional High Court decision. The assessee's claim for depreciation was upheld, with the lower authorities' disallowance being confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive the notices from the CIT(A) due to incorrect address. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, which violates natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order also did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an erroneous ex parte order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3)/263 had become a nullity due to the ITAT's earlier order setting aside the Section 263 order. Consequently, the appeal before the CIT(A) was indeed infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹3.25 crores as unexplained cash credits was incorrect and directed its deletion, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling. However, the assessee's claim for depreciation was upheld as correctly calculated by the lower authorities.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as no addition was made by the AO. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had incorrectly dismissed them ex-parte. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's initial basis for addition (absence of books) was found to be erroneous based on a subsequent remand report. The assessee was able to explain the source of the cash, supported by bank statements and prior year's income, leading to the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271B for not getting accounts audited is not leviable if no books of account are maintained. However, penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account is permissible.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had incorrectly dismissed them ex-parte. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by an Additional Commissioner, not the Commissioner or other specified authorities as mandated by Section 151(1). Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed null and void.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a senior citizen, he is not liable to pay advance tax for the assessment year under consideration. Consequently, the levy of interest under Section 234B is erroneous and does not arise.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had incorrectly dismissed them ex-parte. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed orders without hearing the assessee due to non-service of notices caused by a change of address. For the ends of justice, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to hear the assessee and, if new documents were produced, to call for a remand report from the AO.
The tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed orders without hearing the assessee due to non-service of notices caused by a change of address. For the ends of justice, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the foundation of the AO's reassessment order (the CIT's Section 263 order) was quashed by the Tribunal, the AO's subsequent order was also null and void. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the reassessment order was upheld.