Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the need for detailed examination of documents by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the need for detailed examination of documents by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 60-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for denovo adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all relevant details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the right to receive interest vests only on the due date as per the securities. The Tribunal noted that the method of accounting was not rejected and the income was consistently recognized.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable, considering it was the first year of business and the assessee may not be conversant with legal issues. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer overlooked Section 273B, which provides for reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined all the necessary details and documents before accepting the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was not justified.