Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under Section 153A if no incriminating material is unearthed during the search. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and received certificates in Form No. 1 and Form No. 2. The Department's representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal after noting that the dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs.5,78,000/-, on which the penalty was based, had already been deleted by the ITAT in a separate order. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal observed that the appeal was filed in a defective format and the Revenue failed to remove the defects despite multiple opportunities and reminders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on account of the defect.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the learned CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(A) to decide the limitation issue afresh, giving respectful consideration to the Supreme Court's order dated 21st September, 2021 (cited as 23rd September, 2021 in the judgment). If the learned CIT(A) admits the assessee's appeal after considering the limitation issue, the Tribunal further directed the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's order provided for exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 in computing the period of limitation. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition or the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) as the appeal was being remanded on the preliminary issue of limitation. The issue of personal hearing and consideration of written submissions was implicitly addressed by the direction to decide on merits after admission.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made sufficient inquiries and recorded an office note to that effect. The revision was initiated on the behest of the AO without independent application of mind by the PCIT.
The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority's remarks regarding the assessee's valuation report were without basis and restored the case to the AO to obtain a report from the Departmental Valuation Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to make a case for action under Section 263 as the AO had conducted inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions. The PCIT's order was based on a 'change of opinion' rather than a genuine lack of inquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee were not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal restored these issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the conditions of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, specifically regarding the timely investment in a new asset or deposit of unutilized consideration in a capital gains account before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. Therefore, to provide a fair opportunity, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. Therefore, to provide a fair opportunity, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erroneously calculated the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had filed their return within the extended due date, making the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P incorrect. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The assessee submitted an application requesting to withdraw the appeal as they have opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, and the designated authority had issued the necessary certificates. The Assessing Officer expressed no objection.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had submitted the necessary certificate. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) on both issues. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- under Section 68, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion to be just, fair, and in accordance with law, given the specific facts and circumstances. The Revenue failed to present a case to persuade the Tribunal to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. For the second issue concerning the addition to gross profit, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to make a case to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that no material was brought on record to show that the gross profit determined by the CIT(A) was on the lower side or an underestimation. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order sustaining an addition of Rs. 10,20,693/- and deleting the remaining amount was upheld. The ratio decidendi is that additions made by the AO based on mere assumptions, conjectures, and without credible material, especially when explained by the assessee with supporting evidence and precedents, are liable to be deleted or reduced. The Tribunal also considered various precedents relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the jurisdictional issue and restored it back for adjudication. The issue of addition on merits was previously set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.