Loading ITAT cases…
369 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing appeals. It restored the issues of unexplained loans for both assessment years back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the creditors for examination, with a provision for adverse inference if they fail to do so. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the application was rejected in limine and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee and considering all documentary evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income and that interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justified as advances were made out of sufficient own funds for commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that while LIFO is not an approved method under ICDS-II, both opening and closing stock must be valued using the same methodology. The AO was directed to recompute the profit by following ICDS-II and consider past years for the accumulated impact, potentially through reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income and that interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justified as advances were made out of sufficient own funds for commercial expediency.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that disallowing the entire purchases as bogus would be unreasonable. It was held that purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing sales in the case of a trader, and the addition should be restricted to the extent of the profit element.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the application was rejected in limine and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee and considering all documentary evidence.
The Director of the assessee-Company applied to withdraw the appeals. As the ld. D.R. had no objection, the Tribunal granted permission and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders, rectification orders, and the order of the CIT(A) were passed against a dead person, making them void ab initio. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment, it was held that such proceedings and notices are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, setting aside the previous order. The assessee was granted liberty to file all necessary documents before the CIT(E) for a proper re-evaluation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed only on investments that yielded exempt income, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance of interest, holding that advances were made from own funds for commercial expediency and borrowed funds were not used for these advances.
The Director of the assessee-Company applied to withdraw the appeals. As the ld. D.R. had no objection, the Tribunal granted permission and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to respond to notices and participate in appellate proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the affidavit filed by the assessee, the interest of justice demands an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given proper opportunity by the Assessing Officer, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without seeking a remand report despite the assessee furnishing details. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after providing the assessee one more opportunity of being heard, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
To ensure natural justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A), directing them to provide another opportunity to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits, without being influenced by the earlier order. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not examine the basic facts and that the assessee had presented additional evidence (certificates for exemption) before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the documents concerning the exemption claim and pass a fresh order, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT first condoned the 53-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the appeal filed by the individual partner against an assessment order issued to a partnership firm was not maintainable due to lack of locus standi. The Tribunal affirmed that only the firm against which the assessment was made could have filed such an appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the 62-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to pass the order without inference from previous observations and cautioned the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, noting that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before it and to ensure natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to dispose of the appeal without inference from previous observations, and the assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly.
The ITAT, finding that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with directions to grant the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering its merits. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity, and directing the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the 401-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition. It remitted the case back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to ensure principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to grant the assessee another opportunity to present her case, with a caution for cooperation.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in adherence to the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), as it was filed after receiving the certified copy of the AO's order. Noting that the assessee had not produced details before the lower authorities, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and requiring cooperation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay in filing the appeal. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not address the issues on merits. Deeming it appropriate for natural justice, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1396 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons stated in the affidavit as plausible and not false. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 143(1) without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the TDS mismatch. Since the Ld. Departmental Representative did not object to remitting the matter, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee liberty to submit all necessary explanations and documents.
The ITAT, acknowledging the assessee's affidavit explaining non-appearance and to uphold principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh without being influenced by the observations of the earlier order, thereby allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of both lower authorities' orders and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and considering all submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without adequately considering the condonation of delay application or issuing a speaking order. It emphasized that appellate authorities should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach when bona fide reasons for delay are demonstrated. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and remitted the matter back to them. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of being heard, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion and requires a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, as per Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be potentially satisfactory and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A).
The ITAT condoned the 207-day delay, ruling that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, citing a Supreme Court precedent. The tribunal noted that dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a decision on merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act, and thus restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee a reasonable hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, accepting the reasons provided. In the interest of substantive justice, it set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded both the quantum and penalty matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for readjudication, directing the assessee to produce the suppliers. If the assessee fails to produce them, the AO can draw an adverse inference.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, accepting the reasons provided. In the interest of substantive justice, it set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded both the quantum and penalty matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed the audit report (Form 10B) within the due date. It held that any addition made under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing a prior show-cause notice is bad in law and not sustainable. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, primarily on the technical ground that the penalty notice issued by the AO did not explicitly specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, relying on the Karnataka High Court's precedent in SSA Emerald Meadows. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not raised any specific ground challenging this technical aspect.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. The issues were restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, with the assessee expected to cooperate in the proceedings.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, preventing a proper examination of facts. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was advised to be vigilant regarding notices from the CIT(A) for the hearing.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present facts and collect old records before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file fresh evidence under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra) had examined a large number of companies, including M/s Nikki Global Finance Ltd., whose shares were manipulated for undue benefit to investors. The Tribunal found that the company was part of a list of 84 companies investigated by the Income Tax Department's Investigation Wing, as referenced in paragraphs 3 and 52 of the Swati Bajaj judgment. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that its case could be segregated from other similarly placed investors dealt with in Swati Bajaj, stating that the magnitude of profit or loss is not a decisive factor for the genuineness of a transaction. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the order of the CIT(A) and concluded that the addition made by the AO could not be faulted, as the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the share price rise, which was phenomenal and fanciful over a short period, leading to huge short-term capital losses. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not escape the burden cast upon them under Section 68 to prove the creditworthiness of the companies, the genuineness of the price rise, and the identity of the parties involved.
The Tribunal held that the Section 143(2) notice was invalid because it failed to specify the type of scrutiny (limited/complete/manual) as mandated by CBDT instructions. Furthermore, the notice was issued by an ITO Ward 34(2) exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction, making it a non-jurisdictional issuance. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that a defective Section 143(2) notice renders all subsequent assessment proceedings invalid and void ab initio.
The Tribunal found, based on the evidence including bank statements, that the assessee had not received the alleged amount. It held that the reopening of assessment was without any substantive basis and live link. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings under Section 147 and the assessment order passed under Section 143(3)/147.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 474 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons genuine. The Ld. AR prayed for the appeal to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, which the Ld. DR did not object to. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to provide all documentary evidence for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the minor delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's illness as a reasonable cause. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and to consider any further evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
The Tribunal held that a second reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not valid when it is based on the same material (accommodation entry) that was already the subject of a prior reassessment, the income from which was estimated, added to the assessee's income, and ultimately settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the subsequent reassessment order was quashed.