Loading ITAT cases…
58 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO passed the assessment order without providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. Despite the assessee's non-compliance in the earlier proceedings, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a hearing on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and received a certificate, and the Department had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the claim for bad debts was not sustainable. It also held that the alternate claim for business loss was not supported by material evidence to show it pertained to the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the claim for bad debts was not sustainable. It also held that the alternate claim for business loss was not supported by material evidence to show it pertained to the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal again if the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal, with no objection from the Ld. CIT(DR), dismissed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes due to the assessee having opted for the DTVSVS, 2024. The Revenue was granted the liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the assessee's DTVSVS application is not finally accepted.
The Tribunal held that the claim for bad debts was not sustainable. It also held that the alternate claim for business loss was not supported by material evidence to show it pertained to the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.