Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 272 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reason for the delay (demise of her Authorized Representative) to be genuine and bonafide. The Revenue did not object to the condonation. The Tribunal noted that both the AO and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders as the assessee failed to furnish documents or submissions before them. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present her case, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings by filing essential documentary evidence to prove her case. The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the document impounded during the survey under Section 133A cannot be considered as incriminating material found during the search under Section 132. Therefore, the addition made under Section 153A based on this document is not sustainable.
The Tribunal deleted the 50% addition of ₹17,13,500/- made for cash deposits during demonetization, noting that the assessee's book profit, cash book, and sales were accepted, and corroborative evidence for sales and deposits was furnished, finding no justification for the sustained addition. Regarding the addition of ₹10,94,345/- for sundry creditors related to JVL Group companies, the issue was remanded back to the AO for necessary verification with the liquidator, as the company was reportedly under liquidation. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition without a proper show cause notice and that the AO's 3% net profit rate lacked justification. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 0.5% on the total turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalties based on the assessee's non-compliance after providing only one opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matters should be set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalties based on the assessee's non-compliance after providing only one opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matters should be set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalties based on the assessee's non-compliance after providing only one opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matters should be set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalties based on the assessee's non-compliance after providing only one opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matters should be set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalties based on the assessee's non-compliance after providing only one opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matters should be set aside and remanded.