Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and evidence to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D for multiple assessment years and assessees was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the approval and the consequential assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds raised by the assessee were purely legal and admitted them for adjudication, following the Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) under Section 153D on 27.12.2018 was consolidated for multiple assessment years (2011-12 to 2017-18) and for two assessees (Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF, and Smt. Anita Devi). The Tribunal considered this approval to be mechanical and without application of mind. Relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in Sunil Kumar Sharma, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Delhi High Court decision in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and the Jurisdictional High Court decision in Serajuddin & Co., upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such a consolidated and mechanical approval under Section 153D is invalid and quashed it. Consequently, the assessment orders passed pursuant to this invalid approval were also quashed. The appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were also allowed on similar grounds. The ratio decidendi is that a consolidated and mechanical approval under Section 153D, without independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, renders the entire assessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and bonafide, and noting the Revenue's lack of objection. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and unsustainable. It was found to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and record reasons for the conclusion. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without looking into the merits of the case, failing to consider the assessee's reply uploaded on the portal and not making any analysis of the facts. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside in the interest of justice and fair play. The issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for necessary adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish replies and relevant details. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based solely on estimation by the Assessing Officer, especially when the CIT(A) had also reduced the estimate and granted relief, cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on High Court and Tribunal precedents stating that penalty on estimated profit is not valid.
The Tribunal acknowledged that both the CIT(A) and the AO passed ex parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires setting out the points of determination, decisions, and reasons. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to appreciate the facts in the correct perspective before passing a de novo order. The assessee was also directed to avoid seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds raised by the assessee were purely legal and admitted them for adjudication, following the Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) under Section 153D on 27.12.2018 was consolidated for multiple assessment years (2011-12 to 2017-18) and for two assessees (Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF, and Smt. Anita Devi). The Tribunal considered this approval to be mechanical and without application of mind. Relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in Sunil Kumar Sharma, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Delhi High Court decision in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and the Jurisdictional High Court decision in Serajuddin & Co., upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such a consolidated and mechanical approval under Section 153D is invalid and quashed it. Consequently, the assessment orders passed pursuant to this invalid approval were also quashed. The appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were also allowed on similar grounds. The ratio decidendi is that a consolidated and mechanical approval under Section 153D, without independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, renders the entire assessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds raised by the assessee were purely legal and admitted them for adjudication, following the Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) under Section 153D on 27.12.2018 was consolidated for multiple assessment years (2011-12 to 2017-18) and for two assessees (Shri Sushil Kumar, HUF, and Smt. Anita Devi). The Tribunal considered this approval to be mechanical and without application of mind. Relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in Sunil Kumar Sharma, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Delhi High Court decision in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and the Jurisdictional High Court decision in Serajuddin & Co., upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such a consolidated and mechanical approval under Section 153D is invalid and quashed it. Consequently, the assessment orders passed pursuant to this invalid approval were also quashed. The appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were also allowed on similar grounds. The ratio decidendi is that a consolidated and mechanical approval under Section 153D, without independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, renders the entire assessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, lacking application of mind, and issued in a single order for multiple assessment years. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal found this approval to be invalid and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based solely on estimation by the Assessing Officer, especially when the CIT(A) had also reduced the estimate and granted relief, cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on High Court and Tribunal precedents stating that penalty on estimated profit is not valid.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, lacking application of mind, and issued in a single order for multiple assessment years. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal found this approval to be invalid and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based solely on estimation by the Assessing Officer, especially when the CIT(A) had also reduced the estimate and granted relief, cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on High Court and Tribunal precedents stating that penalty on estimated profit is not valid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and lack of awareness of the hearing date before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, remitting the matter back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially when the delay was not intentional and there was a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposits during demonetization and the genuineness of sundry creditors, despite repeated opportunities. The CIT(Appeals) had already upheld the AO's order.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated two specific grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, despite referring them to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of agricultural income is not legally valid given the assessee possesses 15 acres of agricultural land. It was considered reasonable to disallow 10% of the claimed agricultural income, considering the earlier years' income and the lack of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a detailed reasoning for upholding the Assessing Officer's order and rejecting the assessee's submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him. The CIT(A) is to consider the newly filed documents and re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal, including additional grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him. The CIT(A) is to consider the newly filed documents and re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal, including additional grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him. The CIT(A) is to consider the newly filed documents and re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal, including additional grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him. The CIT(A) is to consider the newly filed documents and re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal, including additional grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him. The CIT(A) is to consider the newly filed documents and re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal, including additional grounds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper examination of records and without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to him. The CIT(A) is to consider the newly filed documents and re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal, including additional grounds.
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by the CIT(A) and remanded for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty became premature and unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper examination of records and without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without examining the merits. Considering principles of natural justice and the assessee being a rural bank, the Tribunal decided to provide one final opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal. While the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal considered the submissions of the Departmental Representative and the material on record. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merit.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's non-appearance, decided to provide one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days due to the advocate's illness. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present all necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that a transfer between NRO and NRE accounts of the same assessee does not result in escapement of income. The AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be invalid, especially since the Form 15CA was filed inadvertently on bank advice.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was defective as it was issued on April 1, 2021, instead of March 31, 2021, which was beyond the statutory time limit. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that such defects invalidate the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 492 days considering the circumstances presented. It was found that the assessee had non-compliance issues before the lower authorities. However, for the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals).
The tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence for the expenses claimed under Section 57. However, considering the interest of justice and fair play, the tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence.
The tribunal observed that the appeal was time-barred by 45 days, but condoned the delay after considering the assessee's petition and the circumstances. The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits, solely based on the assessee's participation in the DTVSVS 2024 Scheme. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the 82-day delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide afresh on merit, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed without any response from the assessee, and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order on the same ground. Considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present their case and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal inclined to restore the appeal to the AO.
The Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income at Rs. 44,96,900 under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the IT Act. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the AO's order due to the failure to produce documentary evidence. The ITAT, considering the totality of facts, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business had closed, leading to a lack of proper office facilities and awareness of the appellate order until Section 271AAC proceedings were initiated. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal observed that there was a complete lack of compliance by the assessee before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 336 days, recognizing that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time due to circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for natural justice.
The ITAT held that the delay of 58 days in filing the appeals was for genuine and sufficient reasons, and accordingly, the condonation petitions were allowed, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the appellate authority to state the points of determination, the decision on the issues raised, and the reasons for such decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not furnished all the required details to the AO. To serve the ends of justice, the ITAT restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to decide them afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to make necessary compliance before the AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that the delay of 58 days in filing the appeals was for genuine and sufficient reasons, and accordingly, the condonation petitions were allowed, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the appellate authority to state the points of determination, the decision on the issues raised, and the reasons for such decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not furnished all the required details to the AO. To serve the ends of justice, the ITAT restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to decide them afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to make necessary compliance before the AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the affidavit filed by the assessee's AR. The Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. The affidavit explained the reasons for non-compliance, including the impact of COVID-19, the accountant's ill health, and the subsequent discovery of the order. The assessee provided an undertaking to make proper compliance if the matter was restored. The Revenue did not object to the restoration. In light of these submissions and the ex-parte nature of the lower appellate authority's order, the Tribunal was inclined to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee, and the assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that the delay of 58 days in filing the appeals was for genuine and sufficient reasons, and accordingly, the condonation petitions were allowed, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the appellate authority to state the points of determination, the decision on the issues raised, and the reasons for such decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not furnished all the required details to the AO. To serve the ends of justice, the ITAT restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to decide them afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to make necessary compliance before the AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be genuine and bonafide, and noting the absence of any objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the orders passed by both lower authorities were made in the absence of compliance from the assessee. Considering the assessee's prayer to be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to submit all documentary evidence to substantiate their case, and the AO was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be deleted. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search concerning the income in question. The assessee made a disclosure in respect of outstanding liabilities for which no bills or vouchers were available. This income was disclosed in the return filed in response to the notice under Section 153A, and this return was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in ACIT vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Limited, which held that when income is disclosed voluntarily in a return filed under Section 153A and accepted by the AO without additions, there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were materially the same as in the cited precedent. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the penalty. The issue of whether the penalty was automatic was not expressly left undecided, but the reasoning focused on the absence of concealment.
The ITAT held that the delay of 58 days in filing the appeals was for genuine and sufficient reasons, and accordingly, the condonation petitions were allowed, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the appellate authority to state the points of determination, the decision on the issues raised, and the reasons for such decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not furnished all the required details to the AO. To serve the ends of justice, the ITAT restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to decide them afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to make necessary compliance before the AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order upholding the AO's addition because the assessee failed to comply with notices. The assessee's representative submitted that they could not appear due to difficulties and requested another opportunity to present their case.