Loading ITAT cases…
496 tribunal orders from the Patna bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 496 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to ensure the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee suffered due to poor persuasion of their case before the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity and accept documents in any form.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit was incorrect as the assessee's sales proceeds exceeded the cash deposit. However, the estimation of business income at 8% of turnover was reduced to 5%.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to ensure the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement occurred after the orders of the revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, including physical verification of the property and considering the cancellation deed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 1. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them if the scheme applications were rejected.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to uphold the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not referring the matter to the valuation authority as per Section 50C(2) and that the CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment without proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also noted that the AO resorted to best judgment assessment without following the prescribed procedure.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 1. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them if the scheme applications were rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the proceedings were ex-parte and the cash deposits remained unexplained. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the 96-day delay, finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient and genuine. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that trade advances received by the assessee from customers, which were subsequently adjusted against sales, could not be treated as unexplained cash credits. It also found that the addition for excess cash was not sustainable solely on the ground of non-production of the cash book during the survey.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's grandparents had some agricultural income, the entire amount deposited could not be fully explained. Therefore, a portion of the addition was deleted, and the rest was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of accepting the source of cash deposit (sale of petrol) and simultaneously treating it as unexplained cash credit was contradictory. The circular regarding demonetization was not applicable to the assessee's case as a seller of petrol.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The evidence submitted was insufficient to satisfy the conditions of Section 68.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive notices from the CIT(A) and therefore could not present their case. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that justice should prevail over technicalities. It held that denying a hearing on merits due to procedural delay would cause irreparable injustice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the assessee did not get a reasonable opportunity to present their case due to health issues and ex-parte assessment. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant one more opportunity based on principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to furnish documents hindered proper adjudication. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to submit relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that justice should prevail over technicalities. It held that denying a hearing on merits due to procedural delay would cause irreparable injustice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that justice should prevail over technicalities. It held that denying a hearing on merits due to procedural delay would cause irreparable injustice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte without addressing the merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte without addressing the merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits of the case violates the principles of natural justice. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive notices from the CIT(A) and therefore could not present their case. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow re-examination of additional documents submitted by the assessee, which were not available during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was based on a misconception and lacked supporting evidence. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's plea of being prevented from presenting their case due to family tragedies, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and the ITAT's own previous ruling for AY 2015-16, stating that the salaries paid were reasonable and not excessive. The denial of exemption under sections 11 & 12 was also set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee by not admitting the appeal. The Tribunal agreed to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another chance to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte without adjudicating the merits of the case. It held that this violated principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and the ITAT's own previous ruling for AY 2015-16, stating that the salaries paid were reasonable and not excessive. The denial of exemption under sections 11 & 12 was also set aside.
The tribunal found that the addition was sustained due to the assessee's non-attendance before the CIT(A). In the interest of substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that justice should prevail over technicalities. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not addressing the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of substantive justice. It was observed that the assessee had not made meaningful representations before the authorities below.
The Tribunal found that the ledger accounts indicated payments to Jagadampha Traders were made on different dates and did not individually exceed Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal set aside the issue and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.