Loading ITAT cases…
173 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No.1 and deposited the requisite amount to settle the dispute, and the Revenue had issued Form No.2. Consequently, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the parties to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not finally settled.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No.1 and deposited the requisite amount to settle the dispute, and the Revenue had issued Form No.2. Consequently, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the parties to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not finally settled.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because they were participating in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the dispute was not settled through the scheme.
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.
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.
The charging of late fee under Section 234E prior to 01/06/2015 is unsustainable, as held by various courts and a coordinate bench of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the assessee being situated in a remote area and potential technical issues with the e-portal. The issue of late fee pertains to a period prior to the amendment making it applicable from 01/06/2015, thus favoring the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's severe COVID-19 illness and the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file requisite submissions/documents before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to an ex-parte order. However, considering the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
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.
The Tribunal referred to a special bench ruling that for private discretionary trusts taxed at MMR, the surcharge should be computed based on the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under 'surcharge on income tax'. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the facts and apply the correct slab.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay in the proceedings and acknowledged a plausible reason for non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner due to the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent gaps. Therefore, for substantial justice, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No.1 and deposited the requisite amount to settle the dispute, and the Revenue had issued Form No.2. Consequently, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the parties to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not finally settled.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in mentioning accumulated income in the wrong column was an inadvertent error and not a frivolous claim. The delay in filing the revised Form 10B was not condoned, but the Tribunal considered substantial justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's severe COVID-19 illness and the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment to verify submissions and documents. The Tribunal found no perversity or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal observed that while the appeals were filed online, Form No.36 was uploaded with the signatory's own signature instead of the assessee's. Due to this procedural defect, the appeals were liable to be dismissed in limini.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not entitled to leniency due to non-compliance. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and decided the appeal ex-parte. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal inclined to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was not ex-parte as it contained a reply filed by the assessee which was considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal found a blatant mistake in the Ld. Commissioner's order.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was not ex-parte as it contained a reply filed by the assessee which was considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal found a blatant mistake in the Ld. Commissioner's order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing the addition related to delayed deposit of PF & ESIC. For the addition concerning gross receipts, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the details. For the addition related to excess PF claim, the Tribunal also remanded the issue to the AO for verification, stating the onus is on the assessee to establish the facts.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. Commissioner's order in the quantum appeal was a blatant mistake apparent from the record as the assessee had not opted for the VSV Scheme for this appeal. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
The assessee filed Form No.1 under the VSV Scheme, 2024, and the Revenue Department issued Form No.2. The assessee was ready to deposit the determined amount. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that while the appeals were filed online, Form No.36 was uploaded with the signatory's own signature instead of the assessee's. Due to this procedural defect, the appeals were liable to be dismissed in limini.
The appellate authority has a duty to decide cases on merits, even if the party is absent. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, despite issuing notices.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner's order appeared to be based on non-application of mind and was liable to be quashed. However, considering it a human error, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, relying on a previous judgment of the Special Bench, held that the surcharge must be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act, applicable to the relevant assessment year, and not necessarily at the highest rate.
The tribunal observed the assessee's non-compliant behavior but considered the peculiar facts and circumstances. Recognizing that the assessee was not properly represented, the tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide crucial documents for reconciliation and proving the source of deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting one last opportunity to the assessee to produce the required documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct appeared to be non-compliant. The appeal was dismissed in limine for want of limitation, but the assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee admitted to non-compliance, it was due to an inadvertent mistake. The Tribunal inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision that a "safer zone/bracket of 10%" amended by the Finance Act, 2020, with retrospective effect, is curative in nature. This decision was followed in a similar case for a co-owner.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances and the miniscule nature of the delay. However, since the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for their claims, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed online and there was no delay. The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on a specific provision of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act and that the assessee had not obtained the required sanction. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee demonstrated engagement in housekeeping, cleaning, and babysitting, accumulating cash for her son's marriage and medical emergencies. The deposit was explained as savings from 40 years of work. The Tribunal noted that documentary evidence for such unorganized work is difficult to obtain and that a plausible explanation was provided.
The Tribunal acknowledged the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the assessee's remote location and lack of education. Considering a lenient view, the delay of 552 days was condoned, subject to a deposit of ₹22,000. The Tribunal also noted that the original issue of registration under Section 12A needed proper adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and found merit in the contention of the Departmental Representative. However, it was deemed essential to examine the documents submitted by the assessee for a just adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the directions given by the Ld. Commissioner were conditional on the assessee's non-cooperation and default. The Tribunal clarified that these directions would only apply if the assessee committed a default, and not otherwise.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee intended to settle the dispute through the VSV Scheme, 2024, and had filed the necessary form. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not settled.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee intended to settle the dispute through the VSV Scheme, 2024, and had filed the necessary form. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not settled.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was non-compliant and irresponsible, warranting no leniency, the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the tricky nature of the issues and the assessment proceedings occurring during the COVID-19 period, necessitated a just and proper decision for substantive justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A). This decision is based on the principle that substantive justice should prevail, even in cases of procedural default, especially when complex issues are involved and the assessment was conducted under challenging circumstances. The assessee is directed to deposit a token cost of ₹11,000 within 15 days and to file relevant submissions/documents. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the substantive merits of the case, as the remand is for proper adjudication by the lower authority.
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view due to the assessee's non-compliant attitude and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This decision is subject to the assessee depositing ₹5,500/- within 15 days from the date of the order under the 'Other Head' in the Revenue Department. The assessee is also directed to file relevant submissions and documents. The Tribunal clarified that failure to comply with these conditions would disentitle the assessee to any leniency. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication limited to the issue of the addition of ₹12,72,800/- under Section 68.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar facts and circumstances, despite the assessee failing to provide substantive documentary evidence for the delay. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that while the assessee's contention about the violation of natural justice appeared plausible, it was not substantiated with documentary evidence. However, considering the overall facts, the Tribunal found that the issues raised in the assessee's applications under Section 12A and Section 80G remained to be adjudicated properly, especially in the absence of relevant documents and submissions which the assessee admittedly failed to file. Therefore, the ITAT decided to remand both appeals back to the file of the learned CIT(E). This remand is subject to the assessee paying ₹11,000 in each case within 15 days to the revenue under the 'Other Head'. The learned CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. The ITAT clarified that any subsequent default by the assessee would disentitle them to leniency. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with these directions.
The Tribunal, considering that the case pertains to a deceased assessee and the legal heir is willing to provide substantiating documents, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that there was no stay or other order against the order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum addition appeal. Considering the facts, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee admitted to the investment, the assessment order lacked specific basis or documentation for the addition made. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed, and the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with the onus on the assessee to establish her claim.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee admitted to the investment, the assessment order lacked specific basis or documentation for the addition made. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed, and the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with the onus on the assessee to establish her claim.
The Tribunal noted a potential violation of natural justice as there was no clear indication of notice being served or an opportunity for hearing being provided to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
While acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply, the tribunal considered the peculiar circumstances of assessment proceedings during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision with an opportunity to be heard.