Loading ITAT cases…
102 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the matters deserved to be remanded back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present the facts and provide the information sought.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the pandemic and admitted the appeal. It was noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 271AAC(1) refers to 'return filed u/s. 139' without specifying sub-sections. The assessee filed the return under section 139(4). The proviso's language does not distinguish between different sub-sections of section 139, therefore, the condition for the proviso was met.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the cash deposits were from sales and included in turnover, and that payments were made electronically. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of the issues, providing one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the matters deserved to be remanded back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present the facts and provide the information sought.
The Tribunal noted that as per the VSVS scheme, the assessee is required to withdraw their appeal. The assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal to settle the disputed tax under the VSVS scheme. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee was not represented before the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex parte order. While acknowledging no fault on the Assessing Officer's part, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had produced evidence before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on the assessee for not being represented and producing evidence before the Assessing Officer, to be paid to the Gaya Bar Association within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes with these directions.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) failed to call for a remand report and partly allowed the appeal without considering all evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) failed to call for a remand report and partly allowed the appeal without considering all evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s orders and restored the matter to the AO, stating that protective assessments are meaningless without substantive assessments. The AO completed assessments, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeals again. The assessee appealed to the ITAT again.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s orders and restored the matter to the AO, stating that protective assessments are meaningless without substantive assessments. The AO completed assessments, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeals again. The assessee appealed to the ITAT again.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given several opportunities by the CIT(Appeals) but did not appear or provide submissions. At the time of the ITAT hearing, the assessee also failed to appear. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh opportunity.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s orders and restored the matter to the AO, stating that protective assessments are meaningless without substantive assessments. The AO completed assessments, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeals again. The assessee appealed to the ITAT again.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the company no longer existed after being struck off. Service of notices to a non-existent entity amounts to service on a non-existent person. Proceedings against such a company are not permissible.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the need to withdraw the appeal as per the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Rule 6DDJ apply as there were no bank accounts in the relevant villages, thus no disallowance can be made for payments made by bearer cheques. For the second issue regarding TDS, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify if the recipients had offered the income to tax.
The Tribunal noted that documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A) were not considered, and the Ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the assessee's non-appearance before the AO. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not deposited any demonetized currency in the bank account, as certified by the banks. The returned income and turnover were accepted in principle. The CIT(A) had conducted a detailed investigation before granting relief. Therefore, the AO's order lacked merit.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to pass a speaking order, not adjudicating the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the need for reasoned orders and proper application of mind by the appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions and evidence presented by the assessee and passed a non-speaking order. Justice requires not only that decisions are made but that they are seen to be made properly, with due consideration of all aspects.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is legally obliged to dispose of appeals on their merits and cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) must pass a speaking order stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons for the decision, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without properly considering the assessee's written submissions and without granting an opportunity for a full hearing. The principle of natural justice was not followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the assessee had sufficient cause. It was observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a reasoned order and without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not determine the advance tax liability. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to be done afresh, allowing the assessee to file an application for exemption from advance tax payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal and the arguments of both parties. It was noted that the assessee missed opportunities to present their case before the CIT(A) due to a communication gap. The Tribunal found it in the interest of substantive justice to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee on merit. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the cash deposit was a contribution from family members for property purchase and that necessary evidence was filed but allegedly ignored by the lower authorities. Considering a potential communication gap, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. They noted that the substantive assessment was made in the individual's capacity, while protective additions were made in the HUF's name, making the protective assessment infructuous and liable for dismissal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. They noted that the substantive assessment was made in the individual's capacity, while protective additions were made in the HUF's name, making the protective assessment infructuous and liable for dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of treating cash deposits as unexplained money was not sustainable without rejecting the assessee's books of account, especially when the deposits were recorded as trade receipts and no discrepancies were found. The Tribunal relied on the Patna High Court's decision in Laxmi Rice Mills vs CIT.
The Tribunal held that while the AO doubted the nexus between cash withdrawals and deposits during demonetization, he accepted the opening cash balance. The assessee, being a corporate entity with audited accounts, had presented evidence of consistent cash withdrawals over several months to build a corpus for land purchases. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation and concluded that the impugned amounts were from a maintained corpus.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative raised no objection. The Tribunal, considering the facts, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had the benefit of any explanation from the assessee to justify the impugned amounts. In the interest of substantive justice, the assessee should be given another chance to prove the transactions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the reasons for the delay and decide the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities. The assessee also did not substantiate their claim before the ITAT. However, to meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not file a return, the CIT(A) should have considered the explanation provided in the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) failed to exercise jurisdiction properly by dismissing the appeal summarily.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was made ex parte under section 144 of the Act without notice. The assessee's counsel argued that the deposits were of business nature and that the assessee had made efforts for compliance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal held that it was in the interest of justice to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. The assessee claimed the deposits were business receipts from fertilizer transactions. The Tribunal found that the facts were not properly examined by the lower authorities and that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the case on merit and merely upheld the Assessing Officer's order. To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remit the matter back, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) might not have had access to all the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to re-examine the documents and pass a reasoned order within 60 days.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme did not yield a successful outcome.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that it was not due to the assessee's negligence and sufficient cause was established. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing, allowing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that it was not due to the assessee's negligence and sufficient cause was established. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing, allowing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the cash credits were business receipts from Vodafone services and that the payments were subject to TDS. The assessee could not furnish documents due to a dealing person falling sick. The tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an old agriculturist with no prior banking experience, had sufficiently explained the source of the deposits. The cash was explained by the sale of agricultural land and past savings, and the deposit was made due to the demonetization policy.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte. The assessee claimed that the introduction of capital was part of the balance sheet and there was no difference in the claimed loss. The assessee did not receive hearing notices as their business address might have been outdated. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities. The assessee also did not substantiate their claim before the ITAT. However, to meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for one more opportunity.