Loading ITAT cases…
55 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) is maintainable, contrary to the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the grants received for setting up the institute were capital receipts and formed part of the corpus, not income. Therefore, they could not be added back to the assessee's income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were dismissed as they were barred by limitation. However, the assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the defect causing the delay was rectified.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) correctly invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the original assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's direction to frame a fresh assessment was valid. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to maintain separate books of account to segregate income derived from activities for the benefit of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes from its other activities. Citing the judgment in Harijan Avam Nirbal Varg Awas Nigam for AY 1979-80, the Tribunal held that for exemption under Section 10(26B), income from the specific object must be severable. Since the assessee could not demonstrate this severability, the exemption of Rs. 29,10,000/- was disallowed and added back to the assessee's income. The grounds related to the interpretation of the Section 263 order and the applicability of Explanation 2 were implicitly decided against the assessee by upholding the PCIT's action and the subsequent assessment.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and materials on record, including the break-up cum reconciliation of fund utilization submitted by the assessee, the Supreme Court decision in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax vs. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust, and CBDT Circular No. 7/2018, found that the combined effect of these submissions required detailed factual verification. The Tribunal observed that these aspects had not been given combined consideration by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored all matters of dispute regarding the various additions made in the assessment order back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a de novo assessment order after considering all relevant materials, including those submitted by the assessee, and after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal in both appeals, except ground-1 in the assessee's concise grounds, are treated as disposed of in accordance with these directions. The Tribunal noted that the materials on record were insufficient for a conclusive decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were dismissed as they were barred by limitation. However, the assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the defect causing the delay was rectified.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored all disputes to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing an opportunity to the assessee and considering the submitted written arguments.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on suspicion, conjecture, and guesswork, as the books of account were accepted, no specific bogus transactions were found, and no justification was provided for quantification.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had provided the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issue in dispute was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the medical condition supported by a certificate. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's contention that the additions should not be in his individual capacity needs verification.
The Tribunal noted that the combined effect of the assessee's submissions regarding the surplus within the permissible limit of 15% and the detailed factual verification required, along with the materials on record, were not given combined consideration by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the materials insufficient for a conclusive decision and therefore set aside the impugned appellate order. All matters of dispute regarding various additions were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass an order after considering all relevant materials, including those submitted by the assessee, and providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal, except ground-1 in the assessee's concise grounds, were treated as disposed of. The Tribunal did not decide on the validity of the notice u/s 143(2) as it was part of the issues restored to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to represent their case, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings and did not file any adjournment applications. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal inferred the assessee's lack of interest and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion and not on any new material. The assessee had explained the clerical error regarding the assessment year, and the original assessment had already examined the allowability of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to explain information received from the bank, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal deemed it necessary to set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to rebut the findings of the investigation report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry, allowing the assessee to lead evidence and examine the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice and considering the facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee's founder, who controls the trust's affairs, was unavailable due to religious tours, leading to non-compliance with notices. For ITA No. 244/LKW/2025, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the application for registration under Section 12A to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh decision, directing the assessee to furnish supporting evidence. For ITA No. 245/LKW/2025, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order and restored the application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iv) to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh decision, directing the assessee to co-operate and furnish requisite evidence. The grounds raised in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard, especially when non-compliance stems from the unavailability of key personnel involved in the trust's management.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice and considering the facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee's founder, who controls the trust's affairs, was unavailable due to religious tours, leading to non-compliance with notices. For ITA No. 244/LKW/2025, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the application for registration under Section 12A to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh decision, directing the assessee to furnish supporting evidence. For ITA No. 245/LKW/2025, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order and restored the application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iv) to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh decision, directing the assessee to co-operate and furnish requisite evidence. The grounds raised in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard, especially when non-compliance stems from the unavailability of key personnel involved in the trust's management.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established that the deposited amount was from prior withdrawals and that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide convincing reasons to reject this explanation. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, with the consent of both parties, restored the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order, adjudicating all issues raised in the appeal after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had failed to consider the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo speaking order after duly considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal, following its coordinate bench's decision, set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of deduction under Section 80P. The interest earned on investments made as per statutory provisions was held to be attributable to the assessee's main activities.
The Tribunal noted that similar appeals for earlier assessment years were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the current appeal back to the AO to decide the issue after considering all relevant documents and submissions.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the school building was constructed and that capital expenditure for charitable purposes is allowed under Section 12A. Considering the assessee's explanation that books were not submitted due to the remote location and e-filing difficulties, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (books of accounts) and remanded the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee must discharge a greater onus to prove the genuineness of investments in penny stocks, the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the stock broker whose statement was used against him. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal observed that even if the Revenue's appeal were to succeed, the tax payable by the assessee would remain nil as the tax already paid under Section 115JB (book profit) exceeded the tax that would be due under normal provisions. Citing CBDT Circulars, the Tribunal concluded that the tax effect on the issues in appeal was below the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's advanced age and medical condition. Observing that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order and the AO did not provide adequate opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to present their case with all necessary evidence, with a caution that non-compliance would allow the AO to proceed ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without following the mandated faceless procedure and that the cash deposits were explained by the transactions of a relative, Geeta Awasthi, who used the assessee's bank account for a property purchase.
The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected merely for mentioning a wrong section and that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned a 22-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the assessee as a minority welfare society. Concluding that the assessee deserved a fair chance, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence and explain the deposits, with a caution for the assessee to fully cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law as it provided less than the mandatory seven days for compliance. Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the reassessment notice, the order under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent order under Section 147 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was vitiated due to borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing, as the AO failed to apply his own mind. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee was the beneficiary of two of the accounts and that the addition under section 68 was not applicable as the deposits were not in the assessee's books.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the addition of Rs. 38,86,000/- back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This is to allow the AO to consider additional evidence filed by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT ought not to have exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issue of investment in immovable property was already under consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). This action usurped the jurisdiction of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits claimed as gifts from mother-in-law and father-in-law were acceptable considering the traditions and social status in Indian society. The amount was deemed not excessive or unreasonable.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that a CBDT notification extended the benefit of Section 10(10AA) to non-government employees with retrospective effect. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order considering the notification.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit but condoned the delay. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit but condoned the delay. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, which violates the statutory duty to pass a speaking order. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal order against the rectification was premature as the appeal against the main addition was still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to consider the rectification along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided no evidence for the cash deposits being business receipts or for filing VAT returns as claimed. It held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the deposits as turnover without material evidence. Consequently, the entire amount of Rs. 1,57,17,908/- should be treated as income from unexplained sources under Section 69A.
The Tribunal found that the sale deeds clearly indicated the assessee was not the sole owner. However, since the exact share was not demonstrated, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, the disallowance of expenses was also restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the CIT(Exemptions)'s rejection of the Section 80G application without affording the assessee a proper hearing violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for readjudication after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) unjustly rejected the assessee's explanation without sufficient evidence and without conducting proper inquiries. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.