Loading ITAT cases…
85 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to set out the point of determination, its decision, and the reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee, challenging the jurisdiction of the AO due to an invalid approval under Section 153D, is a purely legal issue requiring examination of facts. The Tribunal found that an assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before an appellate authority, even if not raised before lower authorities, citing decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, and PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground. However, since these issues were not raised before the first appellate authority (CIT(A)), the Tribunal restored these additional grounds to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide them after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and taking into account the relevant facts. The appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2021-22 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), to meet the ends of justice and in consonance with the principle of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue accordingly. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly in the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the available material. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 220/PAT/2025 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (ITA Nos. 221 to 224/PAT/2025).
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), to meet the ends of justice and in consonance with the principle of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue accordingly. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly in the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the available material. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 220/PAT/2025 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (ITA Nos. 221 to 224/PAT/2025).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 742 days in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal also noted that the appeals appeared to have been decided ex-parte by the Assessing Officer and that the assessee could not make a proper representation before the learned CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to represent their case. The learned CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was barred by limitation by 244 days, but condoned the delay as the reasons were found to be bonafide and genuine, with no objection from the Revenue. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that while the assessee did not claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiid) in its original return, there is no bar to taking an additional claim in appellate proceedings. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had misinterpreted the ratio laid down in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), as an appellate authority can adjudicate such issues. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's trust is not required to be registered to claim exemption for income from educational activities if gross receipts do not exceed ₹1 crore, in conformity with Section 10(23C)(iiid). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition. On the second issue, the Tribunal agreed that only the net income should be assessed to tax but did not adjudicate this alternative submission as the main plea was allowed.
The tribunal admitted the additional legal ground, emphasizing that such issues can be raised for the first time before appellate authorities. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a directive to re-examine the issues, providing the assessee a fair hearing and considering all relevant facts. This decision was also applied to the other connected appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the 101-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. It held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without deciding the issues on merit violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the original orders were passed ex-parte.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A) and agreed with the Ld. DR that in view of the earlier order, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee is a legal issue which can be raised for the first time before an appellate authority. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for adjudication. Since the additional grounds were not raised before the first appellate authority, they were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A) and agreed with the Ld. DR that in view of the earlier order, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee is a legal issue which can be raised for the first time before an appellate authority. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for adjudication. Since the additional grounds were not raised before the first appellate authority, they were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions can only be made on the basis of seized incriminating material, as per Section 153A of the Act. Since no incriminating material was seized in this case, the AO's action was not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was cryptic and the assessee had not represented its case satisfactorily before the CIT(A). It was held that for the ends of justice, the appeals should be restored to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) received additional evidence and requested a remand report, but passed the order without considering it. Therefore, the case was deemed fit to be set aside and remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A) and agreed with the Ld. DR that in view of the earlier order, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation by 285 days. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal observed that the information and details provided by the assessee's counsel required verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee, challenging the jurisdiction of the AO due to an invalid approval under Section 153D, is a purely legal issue requiring examination of facts. The Tribunal found that an assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before an appellate authority, even if not raised before lower authorities, citing decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, and PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground. However, since these issues were not raised before the first appellate authority (CIT(A)), the Tribunal restored these additional grounds to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide them after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and taking into account the relevant facts. The appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2021-22 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the original orders were passed ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without deciding the issues on merit, was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and cautioning against unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without deciding the issues on merit despite issuing notices, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and cautioned the assessee against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues on merit, which violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without addressing the merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal determined that granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the appeal was set aside and remanded to the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, recognizing them as purely legal issues that can be raised for the first time before an appellate authority. As these issues were not previously adjudicated by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity of being heard in consonance with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits based on available materials and cautioned the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the appeal before the NFAC was dismissed in limine without condoning the delay of 190 days. The Tribunal, after hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials, found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and bonafide. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that if the delay in filing an appeal before the first appellate authority is for bonafide and genuine reasons, and the revenue does not object, the appellate tribunal should condone the delay and remand the matter for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal first considered the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay, and considering the reasons provided by the Revenue, the Tribunal was inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. However, at the outset of the hearing, the Departmental Representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The reason cited for withdrawal was that an appeal bearing ITA No. 38/PAT/2020 had already been filed for the same Assessment Year 2014-15, and revised grounds of appeal were to be considered in that earlier appeal. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee did not oppose this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, as the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. Despite numerous notices, no one appeared before the learned CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The Tribunal held that this was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed not to seek adjournments unless required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee, challenging the jurisdiction of the AO due to an invalid approval under Section 153D, is a purely legal issue requiring examination of facts. The Tribunal found that an assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before an appellate authority, even if not raised before lower authorities, citing decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, and PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground. However, since these issues were not raised before the first appellate authority (CIT(A)), the Tribunal restored these additional grounds to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide them after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and taking into account the relevant facts. The appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2021-22 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and genuine, especially as the Revenue's counsel did not object. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Furthermore, the case was not fully represented before the learned CIT(A). Under these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. This would allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2010-11, the Assessing Officer's order dated 27.12.2017 was cryptic and lacked detailed findings. The assessee had not represented the case satisfactorily before the CIT(A). Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Since the facts pertaining to this additional ground required verification at the end of the learned AO, the Tribunal was of the view that the ends of justice would be met by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned AO. The AO was directed to re-adjudicate the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that where procedural irregularities or lack of proper adjudication occur at lower levels, and facts require verification, restoring the matter to the AO with directions for a fresh hearing serves the ends of justice. The operative direction was to restore both appeals to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 385 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the appeal was apparently decided ex-parte by the NFAC, and that despite numerous notices, no one appeared before the NFAC. Consequently, the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, which the Tribunal found to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also cautioned not to seek adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reason provided. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reason provided. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reason provided. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the original orders were passed ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), to meet the ends of justice and in consonance with the principle of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue accordingly. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly in the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the available material. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 220/PAT/2025 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (ITA Nos. 221 to 224/PAT/2025).
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), to meet the ends of justice and in consonance with the principle of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue accordingly. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly in the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the available material. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 220/PAT/2025 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (ITA Nos. 221 to 224/PAT/2025).
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A) and agreed with the Ld. DR that in view of the earlier order, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A) and agreed with the Ld. DR that in view of the earlier order, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A).