Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the 342-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A) order and lack of effective representation. As the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 77-day delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, granting only one day to respond to a second notice after a significant delay of three and a half years. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) to afford the assessee a fresh, reasonable opportunity to submit evidence explaining the cash deposits.
The ITAT found that despite the assessee's non-compliance, specific legal issues regarding the quantum of additions and eligibility for deductions (Section 54F) were raised in the grounds of appeal but not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to furnish necessary materials for examination.
For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was barred by limitation as the relevant period for reckoning the six-year limit fell outside the permissible scope. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal as the issues raised did not emanate from the 153C assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest income from investments made as per statutory requirements (Sections 58 & 59 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act) is attributable to the main activities of the society and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Interest on PF balances of seasonal employees was also not considered income of the society.
The Tribunal held that interest income from investments made as per statutory requirements (Sections 58 & 59 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act) is attributable to the main activities of the society and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Interest on PF balances of seasonal employees was also not considered income of the society.
For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was barred by limitation as the relevant period for reckoning the six-year limit fell outside the permissible scope. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal as the issues raised did not emanate from the 153C assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest income from investments made as per statutory requirements (Sections 58 & 59 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act) is attributable to the main activities of the society and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Interest on PF balances of seasonal employees was also not considered income of the society.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271FA if there are no specified financial transactions to report. For Section 271FAA, the Tribunal found the failure to rectify defects within the stipulated time to be a technical breach, especially since the defects were rectified shortly thereafter and before the penalty was levied.
The Tribunal, relying on precedents, held that the Assessing Officer's failure to refer the property valuation to the DVO, as mandated by Section 50C(2) and the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, renders the addition unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 11,59,091/-. The other grounds related to jurisdiction were deemed academic.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order could not be sustained as it was passed against a deceased person without formal substitution of legal heirs. Citing Section 159(2a) of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication against the legal representative. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271FA if there are no specified financial transactions to report. For Section 271FAA, the Tribunal found the failure to rectify defects within the stipulated time to be a technical breach, especially since the defects were rectified shortly thereafter and before the penalty was levied.
The Tribunal, citing CBDT Circular 37/2016 and judicial precedents, held that even if management expenses are disallowed, any resulting enhanced income related to the business activity, for which Chapter VI-A deduction (Section 80P) is claimed, would still be eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish evidence for the management expenses, with a direction to grant the Section 80P benefit on the enhanced income if substantiation is provided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, citing her minimal education, lack of prior interaction with the tax department, and reliance on a professional who failed to make submissions. Noting that the assessee eventually complied during assessment proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that it was not a fit case for penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that the assessment reopening was invalid because the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs and more than three years had elapsed from the relevant assessment year, requiring mandatory prior approval from the PCCIT, which was not obtained or demonstrated. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposit as sale proceeds of agricultural land, supported by sale deeds.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter regarding the disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, observing that the AO had rejected the assessee's explanation summarily and passed the assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity. The issue of the Rs.2,58,000/- addition was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the disputed issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo speaking order after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's replies and documentary evidence filed through the e-filing portal were not considered by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The disputed matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment order, ensuring reasonable opportunity to the assessee and due consideration of all materials.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, denying the assessee a proper opportunity. Accepting the assessee's request and with no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal to CIT(A) due to medical grounds and noted the ex-parte assessment without reasonable opportunity. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter of the Rs. 4,09,907/- addition to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) provided the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representation and, based on the Departmental Representative's submission for factual verification, remitted all issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a de novo decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine without delving into its merits due to the assessee's persistent failure to rectify the noted defects. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal after all deficiencies are properly addressed, in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that since its own order had set aside the PCIT's Section 263 order, the original assessment order revived. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal against the original assessment as infructuous, and this appeal (ITA 174/LKW/2019) was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the cross-appeals (ITA 161/LKW/2019 and ITA 209/LKW/2019) originating from the now non-existent consequential assessment order were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since its own order had set aside the PCIT's Section 263 order, the original assessment order revived. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal against the original assessment as infructuous, and this appeal (ITA 174/LKW/2019) was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the cross-appeals (ITA 161/LKW/2019 and ITA 209/LKW/2019) originating from the now non-existent consequential assessment order were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act does not extend to third parties from whom documents are not seized. The Tribunal found no independent material to link the assessee to the transactions mentioned in the seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including GST compliance and inventory records, to prove the genuineness of purchases, even if the supplier was a non-filer. It also held that interest on late TDS is compensatory, not penal, and thus not disallowable under Section 37(1).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without a speaking order and properly disposing of the AO's objections. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection order was not a speaking order, as it did not clearly specify how the expenditure was not aligned with the trust's objects. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to allow the assessee another opportunity to present evidence of its charitable activities and proper utilization of funds.
The ITAT held that the opening cash balance was adequately explained by disclosed income of the assessee and family members from earlier years. It ruled that any doubt regarding the opening balance from a preceding financial year should lead to an adverse reference in that preceding assessment year, not the current one. Consequently, the addition of Rs.1,19,462/- was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal on medical grounds. Recognizing that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment with specific directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the disputed additions.
The Tribunal held that since its own order had set aside the PCIT's Section 263 order, the original assessment order revived. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal against the original assessment as infructuous, and this appeal (ITA 174/LKW/2019) was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the cross-appeals (ITA 161/LKW/2019 and ITA 209/LKW/2019) originating from the now non-existent consequential assessment order were dismissed as infructuous.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee filed a paper book with additional evidences and the Departmental Representative did not object to their admission or the request for remand. The ITAT restored the disputed issue regarding the addition of Rs. 19,18,500/- back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and considering all relevant materials.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's plea of ill-health and other relevant factors when deciding the condonation of delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that in the separate quantum appeal (ITA No. 445/LKW/2024), the addition of unexplained money under section 69A, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted. The deletion was based on the finding that the assessee acted merely as an agent of the bank, and the deposited money pertained to the bank. Consequently, as the underlying addition was deleted, the penalty imposed under section 271AAC(1) does not survive.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue placed an undue burden on the assessee by demanding information without providing access to impounded documents. It ruled that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity, violating natural justice principles. All issues were restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to provide impounded materials and pass de novo orders with due process.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68, finding that the appellant failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money transactions. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, partly due to the assessee's failure to appear for hearings and remove registry defects.
The Tribunal admitted new evidence (a bank certificate confirming most deposits were in new currency) as material. It found it just to remand the matter back to the AO to re-examine whether the deposits were indeed from cash sales and properly accounted for in the assessee's turnover. The AO was directed to frame a fresh assessment after considering all new and existing evidence, including books of accounts and the audit report.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to it being barred by limitation and defective. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal by first rectifying the noted defects and filing a proper application for condonation of delay, which will then be dealt with in accordance with law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, invoking the principle of substantial justice, and noted the assessee's prima facie claim of tax exemption as a government-funded entity. It held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present evidence to substantiate its exemption claim and contest the additions. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to ensure full compliance during the proceedings.
The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay, citing the assessee's rural location, manual operations, and late awareness of the demand. It condoned the delay and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's eligibility for exemption under section 10(26AAB), even if not originally claimed in the return of income.
The Tribunal observed that a penalty under Section 271AAC(1) is contingent on the finality of the underlying quantum addition under Section 115BBE, against which the assessee's appeal was still pending. Considering the assessee's claim of not receiving the penalty order as a valid reason for delay and applying the principle of hearing matters on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The case was remitted back to the AO to reconsider the penalty after the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue placed an undue burden on the assessee by demanding information without providing access to impounded documents. It ruled that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity, violating natural justice principles. All issues were restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to provide impounded materials and pass de novo orders with due process.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue placed an undue burden on the assessee by demanding information without providing access to impounded documents. It ruled that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity, violating natural justice principles. All issues were restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to provide impounded materials and pass de novo orders with due process.
The ITAT found that the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and grounds, including crucial legal issues regarding the validity of the penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and violations of natural justice. Therefore, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after properly considering all arguments and evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing reasonable cause due to medical exigencies and the assessee's illiteracy. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing reasonable cause due to medical exigencies and the assessee's illiteracy. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.