Loading ITAT cases…
369 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, as the three-year period for issuing such notice had expired on 31.03.2022, and the income chargeable to tax was below Rs 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were void ab-initio.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee's balance sheet clearly showed cash in hand of Rs. 10,88,827.15 and an income of Rs. 1,87,672/- for A.Y. 2015-2016. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had sufficient cash and profit to justify the deposit, and therefore, no addition was warranted. The appeal was consequently allowed.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the AO had asked for details which the assessee failed to produce. However, giving credence to the AR's statement that a reply was filed but not considered by the AO, the appeal was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file its return and received substantial funds, but failed to provide substantiating evidence for the claimed charitable applications. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication to give the assessee an opportunity to prove its claims.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file its return and received substantial funds, but failed to provide substantiating evidence for the claimed charitable applications. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication to give the assessee an opportunity to prove its claims.
The Tribunal noted that the West Bengal State Electricity Board had made an error in TDS deduction and credit. The assessee had filed a revised computation after the time for revised return had expired. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, considering the revised computation.
The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue) were not satisfied. The Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries and additions, and the Pr. CIT had misconstrued facts in revising the assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file its return and received substantial funds, but failed to provide substantiating evidence for the claimed charitable applications. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication to give the assessee an opportunity to prove its claims.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala. Therefore, the AO was directed to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the entire difference cannot be treated as income, but it's reasonable to estimate income at the declared rate of 8% on the suppressed turnover. The appellate proceedings being ex-parte and delay not condoned were also noted as incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the AO was invalid and a nullity because the AO lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the bank accounts in question were part of the merged company's balance sheet.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were flawed. The AO had issued a notice under Section 148 on March 11, 2021, to which the assessee filed objections on February 2, 2022. However, the assessment order was passed on February 28, 2022, without disposing of these objections. The Tribunal noted that while the objections were filed before the completion of the assessment, they were filed at the very last minute. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO was directed to dispose of the objections filed by the assessee on February 2, 2022. The Tribunal also noted that if the AO, after disposing of the objections, requires further verification regarding the Rs. 10 lakhs received from M/s Shivashiv Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., the assessee would be at liberty to produce authorities to substantiate the claim. Furthermore, the AO was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to rebut any adverse evidence proposed to be used.
The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue) were not satisfied. The Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries and additions, and the Pr. CIT had misconstrued facts in revising the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue) were not satisfied. The Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries and additions, and the Pr. CIT had misconstrued facts in revising the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue) were not satisfied. The Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries and additions, and the Pr. CIT had misconstrued facts in revising the assessment.
The ITAT found that the PCIT's directions were too sweeping and given without due regard to the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal modified the PCIT's order, directing the AO to re-adjudicate the issue of the cash deposit and bring to tax only the income generated from the transaction, rather than the entire amount, requiring the assessee's cooperation.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding the reasons in the affidavit acceptable. While acknowledging the assessee's casual approach, the Tribunal granted a second chance, setting aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanding both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment on merits. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for each appeal on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank Limited is a registered cooperative society and the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from its deposits with the bank. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the 67-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided. It set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present further facts.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly applied the law to the facts of the case and granted relief. The Tribunal noted that once a notice under section 148 has been complied with, the AO is duty-bound to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Citing various judicial pronouncements, including the Apex Court's decision in Asstt. CIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, the Tribunal concluded that the failure to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in reassessment proceedings is fatal to the assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided were unintentional. The Tribunal noted that a valid exemption certificate was available with the assessee and that the Assessing Officer had not considered it.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding the reasons in the affidavit acceptable. While acknowledging the assessee's casual approach, the Tribunal granted a second chance, setting aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanding both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment on merits. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for each appeal on the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain a significant portion of the cash deposits. Since the firm's bank accounts continued to operate after the claimed dissolution, the firm could be assessed as an Association of Persons. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was not served on the assessee because it was issued and affixed at the wrong address. The service report indicated an incorrect address, and the envelope was returned with remarks of an incorrect address.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not produced the required details or bills before the lower authorities. Giving credence to the AR's request for an opportunity to produce documents, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a *de novo* assessment, ensuring the assessee is granted adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, citing *Nitdaa Foundation*, held that the assessee, being an old entity, should have applied under Section 80G(5)(i), and that mentioning the wrong clause (iii) was a curable defect. The order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to him for reconsideration of the application as one filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5).
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication afresh on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to cooperate with the re-adjudication proceedings.
The ITAT held that even if the exemption was denied, the assessment of income must be based on total receipts minus expenses. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the taxable income by allowing for legitimate expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding that the delay was not intentional or due to mala fide intentions. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding that the delay was not intentional or due to mala fide intentions. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their facts.
Despite numerous opportunities and multiple postings for hearing, the assessee failed to appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to represent their case or substantiate the grounds raised. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 89 days, finding the reasons plausible. Subsequently, based on the AR's prayer that the appeal was a duplication of an already decided matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to produce all necessary evidence to substantiate its case. The tribunal also noted that an adjournment request by the assessee was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to acknowledge and address the assessee's submission regarding the permissible set-off of interest income against depreciation losses. It clarified that, as per Section 72(3) of the Income Tax Act, income classified under 'Income from Other Sources' can indeed be set off against depreciation losses. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the benefit of setting off the said interest income against the carried forward depreciation loss.
Despite numerous opportunities and multiple postings for hearing, the assessee failed to appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to represent their case or substantiate the grounds raised. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to consistent non-appearance and failure to rectify the defects in the appeal filing. The Tribunal observed the assessee's recalcitrant behavior before the ld. Assessing Officer and upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to restore the case for readjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 364-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard and to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings.
The tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The AO was directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal was based on a mistaken assumption regarding the assessee's option for the VSV Scheme. In the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-party as the assessee failed to respond. The Tribunal inclined to restore the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting an opportunity to the assessee to present facts and legal grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of proper compliance before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), partly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders for both years and remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for reassessment de novo, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard and make submissions.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention that the penalty notice under Section 274 was defective, citing a High Court judgment that the notice was valid as the charge of concealment was clear. However, on merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided prima facie evidence regarding the source of investment during penalty proceedings, which was ignored by the lower authorities. Emphasizing the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration of the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition, observing that the creditors did not appear for personal appearance, the assessee failed to produce them for examination/cross-examination, and the sources of funds of the lenders were not explained. The assessee's AR submitted that non-compliance occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic and requested another opportunity before the Ld. AO. Considering the lack of proper compliance before both the AO and CIT(A), and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The same direction was given for AY 2017-18, as the facts were similar. The ratio is that where non-compliance is attributed to exceptional circumstances like a pandemic, and the assessee requests a remand for proper opportunity, the Tribunal may grant it in the interest of justice, provided the revenue does not oppose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to represent themselves despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the additional ground raised. The issues were restored to the file of the Addl./JCIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters back to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and required information.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the assessee's claim as a non-profit educational institution. While acknowledging the mandatory nature of filing under Section 139(1) when income exceeds the basic exemption limit, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on the entitlement to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and compliance with relevant conditions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was against an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is not an appealable order under Section 246A. The order passed under Section 154 was not the impugned order challenged before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO's action in issuing the notice under Section 142(1) was not infirm, considering the assessee had not filed a return and substantial deposits were found in bank accounts. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which remanded the matter for fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with notices from the CIT(A) but, in the interest of substantive justice, allowed the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.