Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issue of delayed deposit of PF & ESI contributions to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have sought further submissions on the delay before dismissing the appeal. Given the assessee is a cooperative society primarily run by women, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity of hearing and to pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the NFAC had not properly examined the assessee's reasons for delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while there was a delay, the CIT(E) should have considered the assessee's genuine hardships. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal stated that limitations for filing such forms are not sacrosanct in cases of hardship.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also set aside the ex-parte assessment order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issue of delayed deposit of PF & ESI contributions to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issue of delayed deposit of PF & ESI contributions to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and law. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without calling for an explanation from the assessee regarding the alleged delay. The assessee's explanation for the revised Form 35 was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay, arising from personal circumstances, deserved consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application, considering the assessee's location and the period of delay. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits and law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits and law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits and law.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The lack of proper notice service and consideration of grounds led to the decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not examine the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the personal circumstances cited by the assessee deserved reasonable consideration. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits and law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits and law.
The Tribunal found that the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding donations requires verification. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, including calling for additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the closure of business activities leading to mismanagement can be considered a sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals. The CIT(A) had failed to condone the delay, which the Tribunal found inappropriate.
The Tribunal found the NFAC's dismissal harsh for an individual assessee, especially given the short delay and the claim that books of accounts were not required. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the NFAC's dismissal harsh for an individual assessee, especially given the short delay and the claim that books of accounts were not required. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the NFAC should have investigated the assessee's claim for adjournment based on CESTAT proceedings. To ensure a fair hearing, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the closure of business activities leading to mismanagement can be considered a sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals. The CIT(A) had failed to condone the delay, which the Tribunal found inappropriate.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal also noted that a subsequent rectification order had escaped the PCIT's attention, rendering its section 263 order flawed.
The Tribunal held that the second application, filed to correct a technical defect in the first, should be considered a continuation of the original proceedings. The time-bound nature of filing applications is procedural, and the Prescribed Authority failed to consider the assessee's plea judiciously.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's age and lack of technical knowledge. It found that the NFAC's order lacked details on notice service and that the assessee claimed ownership of only one property, with supporting evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the closure of business activities leading to mismanagement can be considered a sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals. The CIT(A) had failed to condone the delay, which the Tribunal found inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the closure of business activities leading to mismanagement can be considered a sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals. The CIT(A) had failed to condone the delay, which the Tribunal found inappropriate.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was passed without proper service of notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits and legal issues, ensuring the assessee is heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with directions for a speaking order and a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to lack of clarity on notice service and non-prosecution dismissal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It found that the NFAC's order did not reflect the mode of service of notices and that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions due to lack of documentary evidence. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues on merits and law to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the proposed adjustment reasons differed from the actual adjustment made under Section 143(1). Additionally, the intimation for proposed adjustment was not concluded within the prescribed 30-day period. The CIT(A) also erred by adjudicating on merits, which is beyond the scope of Section 143(1).
The Tribunal found that proper notice was not served on the assessee at the first appellate stage. Considering the issue of Section 50C and the potential retrospective application of a Finance Act amendment, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided in the affidavit to be corroborated by the assessee's ITR filing status. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing and decision.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is to be given a fresh opportunity of hearing to pass an order afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided in the affidavit to be corroborated by the assessee's ITR filing status. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing and decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to contest the case on merits before the CIT(A) after payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and order.
The Tribunal found that the remand report did not indicate any opportunity of being heard was afforded to the assessee, and no details of notices issued were mentioned. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's dismissal was based on a lack of proper hearing opportunity. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both merits and legal issues.
The Tribunal found that while notices were sent via email, the assessee had requested that notices not be communicated through email. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while notices were sent via email, the assessee had requested that notices not be communicated through email. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while notices were sent via email, the assessee had requested that notices not be communicated through email. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the assessee's claim that the transaction was business income. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues for fresh adjudication.