Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal, emphasizing the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the learned CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the learned CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard and present its case before passing a fresh order, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's request for an opportunity to furnish the necessary documents, restored both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to pass fresh orders after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and to present all required documents for registration/approval.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the explanation provided in the affidavits. They decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard, in adherence to natural justice principles. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence under Section 250(4) of the Act, even if Rule 46A was not strictly complied with, as it was necessary to examine the assessee's claim. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) to accept the additional evidence and decide the issue on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeals and, to uphold principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee another opportunity of being heard, with a clear caution for the assessee to cooperate promptly.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's request for an opportunity to furnish the necessary documents, restored both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to pass fresh orders after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and to present all required documents for registration/approval.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons for delay. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given ample opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT observed the assessee's casual approach in responding to notices. However, in the interest of substantive justice, both appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their facts and documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity to present evidence and the AO's hurried assessment, the Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing natural justice, remitted the case back to the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on its merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their claim, without being influenced by the previous dismissal.
The Tribunal held that confusion arose due to the presence of multiple sets of accounts. To ensure substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh appraisal of the accounts after the assessee presents all facts.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee's casual approach but prioritizing substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to present all facts and documents.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and the assessee could not submit required details. In the interest of justice, both the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated failure to appear or submit documents before the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard, with a caution to promptly cooperate.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard, in adherence to natural justice principles. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), remitting the case back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee. The penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside as the main order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) might not have provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. To ensure justice, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee, who is also cautioned to cooperate.
The ITAT, to ensure the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was cautioned to promptly cooperate with the proceedings, failing which the lower authority could pass an appropriate order based on the available records.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with future proceedings.
The ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(Appeals)'s orders, remitting the matters back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a caution to ensure prompt cooperation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeals and, to uphold principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee another opportunity of being heard, with a clear caution for the assessee to cooperate promptly.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(Appeals) and did not file submissions or evidence. While the appeal was time-barred by two days, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard, cautioning cooperation.
The ITAT condoned the 380-day delay in filing the appeal. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)' ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity subject to strict cooperation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed the assessee's repeated failures to cooperate with lower authorities. However, to uphold the principle of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one final opportunity to be heard, with a caution to cooperate in the proceedings.
The ITAT observed that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee was not vigilant, the Ld. CIT(A) was not judicious in dismissing the explanation for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. It remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to ensure the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ITAT also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly with the proceedings, failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) may pass an appropriate order based on available records.
The ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(Appeals)'s orders, remitting the matters back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a caution to ensure prompt cooperation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 235-day delay and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard, while the assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the DTVSV Scheme. In light of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, concerning the DTVSV Scheme, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek restoration if future facts warrant it.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's appeal was dismissed without a discussion on merits due to procedural issues and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to consider the existing remand report and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ITAT upheld the decision of the second CIT(A), agreeing that an appeal to the CIT(A) is not maintainable against an order passed by another CIT(A). The Tribunal stated that the assessee should have approached the ITAT directly after the first CIT(A) order dated 07.04.2014, with a petition for condonation of delay if necessary, under Section 253(5) of the Act.
The ITAT noted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) had set aside the AO's order without deciding on the merits. To ensure natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide another opportunity of being heard to the Revenue before passing appropriate orders.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's affidavit regarding non-receipt of notices and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A) orders, condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It decided to set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation in prior proceedings but, in the interest of justice and with no objection from the Sr. DR, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity. This restoration was conditional on the assessee paying costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed. The assessee was also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the ₹31,15,000/- was a repayment of a loan previously advanced by the assessee to M/s Popular Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. in FY 2019-20. The transaction was supported by banking channels and relevant documents, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal, relying on its own precedent in M/s Kothari Metals Ltd., held that the notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 should have been issued by 31.03.2022 under the old regime. The benefit of TOLA for extending due dates was not applicable. As the notice was issued on 28.07.2022, it was beyond the prescribed limitation, rendering the consequent assessment order unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order suffered from patent illegality due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to its completion. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A), in its order dated May 13, 2024, had explicitly stated in paragraph 7 that the non-issuance of the notice constituted a fatal error, making the assessment order illegal and deserving of being quashed. Consequently, the CIT(A) had allowed the ground raised by the assessee and had not adjudicated upon other grounds. Following this finding by the CIT(A), the Tribunal concluded that the order levying the penalty was rendered invalid. Therefore, the penalty order, as confirmed by the CIT(A), was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 144 was passed due to non-compliance by the assessee, and the CIT(A) confirmed this order also due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the submission that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee to place its case before the AO, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit the appeals to the file of the AO. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to hear the assessee and pass a fresh order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of ex-parte orders, especially where a claim of lack of opportunity is made, and the revenue does not object to a remand, the interest of justice may warrant a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 144 was passed due to non-compliance by the assessee, and the CIT(A) confirmed this order also due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the submission that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee to place its case before the AO, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit the appeals to the file of the AO. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to hear the assessee and pass a fresh order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of ex-parte orders, especially where a claim of lack of opportunity is made, and the revenue does not object to a remand, the interest of justice may warrant a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69/69A, considering it an oversight not present in the draft assessment order. The TP adjustment issue was remanded to the TPO for re-evaluation in light of a subsequently entered Advance Pricing Agreement (APA). The matter of interest under Section 234A was also remanded to the AO for re-calculation, considering the extended due date for filing the return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order. It observed that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 10(23C)(via), had provisional approval, and had subsequently filed Form 10BB within the time allowed by CBDT Circular No. 16/2024 dated 18.11.2024 for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that despite opportunities, the assessee had not produced sufficient material. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, directing the assessee to produce the directors of the share applicant companies, their bank accounts, and identification numbers for cross-examination to verify the genuineness of the share application money.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's affidavit regarding non-receipt of notices and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A) orders, condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It decided to set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeal if necessary.
The tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard by ensuring proper service of notice, in the interest of justice.