Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and directed it to pass a de novo order after deciding the assessee's appeal against the quantum order under section 201, and after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the explanation tendered by the assessee regarding the cash deposit was satisfactory. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was factually wrong and based on a misconceived understanding of the facts. The CIT(A) had relied on paragraph 3 of the assessment order, stating that the AO mentioned the assessee produced books of account, cash book, ledger, bills, and vouchers which were verified. However, the Tribunal noted that paragraph 3 of the assessment order actually stated that no information was supplied by the assessee and the AO had no option but to finalize the assessment based on available material. Therefore, the basis on which the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee was factually incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment order dated 28/03/2022 passed by the AO. The issue regarding the quantum of addition became academic as the assessment order was restored. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the Assessing Officer had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's PAN jurisdiction was with Ward-5(2)(3), Gautam Budh Nagar, and the assessee's address was in Noida. There was no order under section 127 of the IT Act transferring the jurisdiction to Kanpur. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer-1(5) and Income Tax Officer-4(3) in Kanpur were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal drew strength from the Delhi Bench ITAT order in the case of Nafees Ahmad vs. Income Tax Officer, which quashed reassessment proceedings initiated without valid jurisdiction. Consequently, the notice under section 148 was quashed, and the assessment order was annulled. As a result, the other grounds of appeal concerning the merits of the addition became academic and were not deliberated upon. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, without admitting it or going into its merits, as it was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The Tribunal clarified that the Revenue retains the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if it can demonstrate that the appeal is otherwise maintainable despite the tax effect being below Rs.60 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Based on this finding, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed additions back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the addition for purchases was not hit by Section 40A(3) due to Rule 6DD(d) concerning adjustments against old jewellery. The addition for bank deposits was deleted as it was already included in sales and the books of account were not rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a reasonable opportunity during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the additions were restored back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to provide due consideration and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the applications for registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to provide due consideration and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the applications for registration.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the Assessing Officer had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and set it aside. The issues in dispute were restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit additional documents like Khasra and other records to prove agricultural activity and its proceeds.