Loading ITAT cases…
173 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the Assessee's explanation genuine and unintentional. For the lead case (ITA No.266/Nag/2025), the Tribunal found that the Assessee failed to file submissions before the Commissioner and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, remanded the case for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not valid in this case. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sejal Jewellers v/s Union of India, [2025] ITL-881 (Bom.). In that case, the Hon'ble High Court had dealt with an identical issue where the assessee's case was re-opened based on a search and seizure operation carried out on a third party. The Hon'ble High Court had held that such an assessment should be made under Section 153 of the Act, not under Section 147. Consequently, the Hon'ble High Court had quashed the assessment proceedings and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Applying this precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order itself. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal noted the delay and the assessee's explanation. While the Revenue refuted the claim, the Tribunal considered the affidavit's contents and found the reasons to be reasonable and bonafide. The delay was condoned, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the Assessee's explanation genuine and unintentional. For the lead case (ITA No.266/Nag/2025), the Tribunal found that the Assessee failed to file submissions before the Commissioner and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, remanded the case for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were carried out during the COVID-19 period, which significantly impacted the ability of individuals and businesses to comply with statutory requirements. The assessee's counsel demonstrated a plausible reason for non-compliance with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the issue before the lower authorities remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner. In the interest of substantial justice and for a just and proper decision, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer as an exceptional case. The learned CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to file the relevant submissions/documents. The Tribunal clarified that no leniency would be granted in case of any subsequent default by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, acknowledging the importance of the documents submitted by the Assessee for proper adjudication. The Court decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act before passing the assessment order. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, it was held that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for making an assessment under section 143(3), and its absence vitiates the assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the Assessee's explanation genuine and unintentional. For the lead case (ITA No.266/Nag/2025), the Tribunal found that the Assessee failed to file submissions before the Commissioner and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, remanded the case for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was unsustainable and not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved. It was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn on this ground.
The tribunal observed that the assessee had filed submissions and documents, but the Ld. Commissioner had dismissed the appeal without analyzing them. This violation of the principles of natural justice led the tribunal to set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file a proper affidavit to support the condonation of delay. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case for condonation of delay by producing relevant documents. The case was remanded to the Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner failed to pass an order on merits. For a just and proper decision, the case is remanded to the AO, with the condition of the assessee depositing Rs. 3,300/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, considering the assessee's NRI status and lack of awareness of filing procedures as plausible reasons. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated the flat's purchase price was adjusted from the sale of agricultural land.
The Tribunal accepted the contention that the amount was already shown by the assessee. However, if an addition was to be sustained, it should be at a profit rate of 8%, considering previous and subsequent profit averages. The Tribunal inclined to apply a net profit rate of 8% over the gross profit rate.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claimed the same deduction was allowed in previous years without factual differences. While acknowledging the issue might be debatable, the Tribunal held that tax cannot be levied without authority of law. Thus, the deduction under section 80P should be allowed, subject to verification.
The Tribunal noted that two additions were made on a single issue, which the Amicus Curiae argued was improper. The Tribunal also observed that the lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to a delay without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the demise of the assessee's accountant and the circumstances presented. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned order was ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also referred to a co-ordinate bench decision allowing similar claims under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. Due to the peculiar facts and circumstances, and to ensure proper adjudication, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the difference between the FMV and the sale consideration was less than 5% of the statutory leverage. Therefore, the addition sustained by the AO was considered excessive.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of share application money and long-term capital gain were subject to scrutiny during the original assessment proceedings, and therefore, reopening based on a change of opinion is not sustainable. However, the addition sustained on account of disallowance under section 14A was upheld as per law.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claims to have filed documents before the Ld. Commissioner, which were not examined. Considering the facts and circumstances, and to ensure proper decision and substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasons for the delay were bonafide and unintentional. While condoning the delay, a condition was imposed for the deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to non-compliance, which was partly due to communication issues regarding email addresses.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner had not considered the assessee's additional evidence and relied solely on the remand report. It further found that the AO's addition was made without corroborative evidence, rendering it unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's counsel submitted that the order was not initially available online. Considering this, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present the order. The appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the 57-day delay in filing the appeal, deeming the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and unintentional. Upon examining the merits, the Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 36,13,000/- was made by the AO based on a property purchase transaction, while the reasons for reopening were primarily based on a property sale transaction. The Tribunal relied on a High Court judgment stating that if the income forming the basis of the reason to believe under Section 147 has not been assessed or reassessed, the AO cannot independently assess other income that comes to notice subsequently without a fresh notice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings under section 147 of the Act, initiated by a notice dated 31/03/2021 and consequent assessment order dated 25/03/2022, were liable to be quashed as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
The Tribunal found that the issue raised before the Ld. Commissioner needed to be adjudicated properly, especially due to the absence of necessary documentary evidence. Therefore, for a just and proper decision, the case was remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Following a Special Bench ITAT ruling, the Tribunal held that for Private Discretionary Trusts taxable at the maximum marginal rate, surcharge must be computed as per the slab rates in the Finance Act, not at a flat 37%. Consequently, the 37% surcharge was deleted, and the AO was directed to apply surcharge as per Paragraph A, Part 1, First Schedule.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for verification purposes only, without conducting a roving enquiry.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's counsel submitted that the order was not initially available online. Considering this, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present the order. The appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The ITAT, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, allowed the assessee's appeals. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the order was not initially available and has since been made accessible. Consequently, the appeals were remanded back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner is directed to decide the appeals afresh after taking into consideration the complete order/intimation passed by the CPC. The assessee is also directed to provide the complete set of the said order to the Ld. Commissioner. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee's appeal was considered liable to be dismissed as withdrawn due to the filing of the VSV Scheme application. However, liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order if the dispute settlement through VSV Scheme was not finalized.
Considering the facts and circumstances, and that the assessee had initiated an efficacious remedy, the case was remanded to the JAO for appropriate action on the rectification application. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided proof of registration under Section 12AA dated 28/06/2017, which was still in existence and not cancelled. Considering the facts, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had taken steps to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not settled.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit of ₹1,100, considering the circumstances to be bonafide, genuine, and unintentional. However, on merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to substantiate their submissions with documentary evidence, leading to an addition by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹9,28,735/- as undisclosed investment in shares was unsustainable because it was made without disclosing substantive material and was based on information from Wasankar Wealth Management, which had defrauded the public, a fact supported by the assessee's police report. The Tribunal found that without prima-facie establishing a case against the assessee, liability could not be fastened. Regarding the addition of ₹2,48,000/- under Section 69A, the Tribunal considered the assessee's pension income of ₹1,10,988/- and found the investment of ₹2,48,000/- to be probable and plausible, thus unsustainable. For the addition of ₹46,613/- as interest income, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's income was below the taxable limit, and the interest amount was not shown in the return, making this addition unsustainable as well. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business and regularly purchases plots for stock-in-trade. Treating the interest expenses on borrowed funds for these plots as unsustainable under Section 36(1)(iii) was incorrect, as they were directly related to the business of stock-in-trade.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no surcharge would be leviable as the assessee's total income did not exceed ₹50,00,000/-. Consequently, the surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer at 37% was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹9,28,735/- as undisclosed investment in shares was unsustainable because it was made without disclosing substantive material and was based on information from Wasankar Wealth Management, which had defrauded the public, a fact supported by the assessee's police report. The Tribunal found that without prima-facie establishing a case against the assessee, liability could not be fastened. Regarding the addition of ₹2,48,000/- under Section 69A, the Tribunal considered the assessee's pension income of ₹1,10,988/- and found the investment of ₹2,48,000/- to be probable and plausible, thus unsustainable. For the addition of ₹46,613/- as interest income, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's income was below the taxable limit, and the interest amount was not shown in the return, making this addition unsustainable as well. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's general non-substantiation but acknowledged partial compliance before the Assessing Officer. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the Ld. Commissioner's order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to depositing ₹5,500/-.
The tribunal held that, as per the first schedule to the Finance Act, no surcharge is leviable when the total income does not exceed ₹ 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the 37% surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer, finding it to be unwarranted.
The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal based on the available material and observed that the assessee failed to present submissions or documents to counter the Assessing Officer's contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Act, which excludes cooperative banks from deduction, applies only when the assessee itself is a cooperative bank. In this case, the assessee is a cooperative society investing in cooperative banks, and the interest income earned is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the principle of adopting a construction favoring the assessee when interpretations of taxing provisions differ.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity for a hearing to the assessee regarding the condonation of delay. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice and follow principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
For AY 2011-12, the appeal was allowed as the penalty could not survive without a valid addition. For AY 2012-13, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the case considering a similar issue for AY 2013-14, especially if the factual aspect is identical.