Loading ITAT cases…
85 orders · Page 2 of 2
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).
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).
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons bona fide and genuine. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity for representation and to decide the case on merit afresh.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 377 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal observed that the NFAC order appeared to have been decided ex-parte. It noted that despite numerous notices, no one appeared before the NFAC, leading to an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The ITAT held that this was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the ITAT 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 directed not to seek adjournments unless required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
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).
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 condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal noted that the original order was passed ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the ex-parte order was passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.
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 appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back to the AO to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and explain the source of the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, citing High Court judgments. The delay in filing was considered unintentional and due to the consultant's issues. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). The assessee claimed that books of account could not be produced due to various reasons including arbitration proceedings and a criminal taking over the property. The Tribunal considered the request for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's conduct demonstrated gross negligence and a lack of due diligence in pursuing the appeal. Since no sufficient cause was provided for the significant delay, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an institution solely existing for educational purposes and having gross receipts below Rs. 1 crore, qualifies for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment at MMR was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was not produced before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to file the return was due to a bona fide administrative or procedural error and not a wilful default. Considering the precedent from AY 2015-16 where a similar penalty was deleted for reasonable cause, and the absence of tax loss to the revenue, the Tribunal found reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not allowing the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal also noted that deductions claimed under sections 54B/54F were not allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with notices from the AO and CIT(A). However, the assessee produced sales register and cash book before the Tribunal. Considering it in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO to examine these documents and verify if the cash deposit was from sale proceeds or debtors.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits, and without proper representation. The Tribunal also noted that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted to the AO for reassessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the writ petition and lack of proper advice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that capital gains should be recognized in the financial year the development agreement was executed and registered. The non-consideration of indexation benefit by the lower authorities was noted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appeal orders were passed ex parte. Considering that the assessee claimed the cash deposits were from business sales and had produced supporting documents, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was made ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal inferring the assessee had nothing to say, despite the assessee claiming to have filed a written explanation that was not considered. The Tribunal observed that the assessee claims to have sufficient evidence and that the AO did not provide adequate justification for treating demonetization deposits as unexplained under Section 69A, nor did they consider the claimed reply. For the remaining period, receipts were treated as business income without sufficient reason. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits by passing a speaking order. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions, and Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 will be followed, with an opportunity for the AO if required. The grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the assessee was unable to participate in the proceedings before the AO and CIT(A) due to severe health issues and subsequent demise. The legal heir was unaware of the proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the AO's additions. However, the Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and fair play, found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and decided to set aside both the CIT(A)'s and AO's orders.
The Tribunal noted that the same addition of ₹5,64,700 was already made in the hands of the assessee's brother. It was held that the same cash cannot be subject to addition in the hands of two assessees. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable upon the transfer of development rights, even if the property is under construction. The consideration includes the share of the constructed area, not just monetary payment. The date of JDA execution is considered the transfer date. However, the indexed cost of acquisition was not properly allowed by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the case on merits and setting aside the order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee, confirming the AO's order. However, the Tribunal felt that the facts of the case were not adequately examined and the assessee deserved another opportunity for proper representation.
The Tribunal noted that proper representation was lacking at both the assessment and appellate stages. The assessee's representative argued that notices were not properly received due to the Karta's lack of computer literacy and dependence on consultants. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed to have sufficient evidence to explain the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to a delay of 174 days without adjudicating the matter on merits. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's appeal before it had a delay of 242 days, for which a petition explaining the reasons was filed. Although none appeared for the assessee at the hearing, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, felt the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case before the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to ensure due compliance with notices and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The issue of the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was effectively condoned by restoring the matter to the CIT(A).