Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a proper hearing, depriving the assessee of an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits and without providing an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 303-day delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits, depriving the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide confirmation for the unsecured loan, satisfactory explanation for cash deposits, and justification for the decline in net profit ratio. However, considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, the Tribunal found apparent factual errors in the CIT(A)'s order, including incorrect mention of the assessee's name and the quantum of cash deposits, indicating a non-application of mind. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if income is estimated as business income, section 69A for unexplained money cannot be simultaneously invoked. The income should be taxed as normal business income under the regular provisions of the Act, not under section 115BBE.
The Tribunal noted that it is a settled principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice. Since Shri Motilal admitted ownership of the transactions and his assessment is pending, the Assessing Officer should examine this and verify if the income is being assessed in Shri Motilal's hands.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter required fresh examination and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard as the CIT(A) allegedly did not consider the assessee's submissions and request for a video conference hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation and the assessee had failed to comply with notices from the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in an ex parte order. However, considering the seriousness of the additions and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, despite the assessee's absence at hearings. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter required fresh examination and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter required fresh examination and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter required fresh examination and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee contended that the cash withdrawals were used for agricultural trading. However, the lower authorities found that the assessee failed to appear and provide substantial documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-compliance and non-prosecution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee admittedly did not file the return of income. However, the specific contention regarding banking correspondence activities under a license issued in the assessee's brother's name was not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's addition and the CIT(A)'s dismissal were primarily due to the assessee's failure to submit relevant documentary evidence. Considering the facts and the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was vague as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions stating that such a notice is bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(E) nor the Tribunal, and the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without considering the assessee's explanations or documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the cash withdrawal of ₹9,00,000 on April 16, 2016, for heart surgery, which was subsequently deposited back into his account during demonetization, is reasonable and plausible. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the withdrawal could not be given credit because the assessee had not explained prior cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished an explanation regarding the source of cash being withdrawals from the bank and personal savings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹8,00,000. The ratio decidendi is that a reasonable and plausible explanation for cash deposits, even if it involves prior withdrawals, should be accepted if supported by evidence, and the failure to explain earlier deposits should not automatically lead to disallowance if the current explanation is credible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(E) nor the Tribunal, and the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without considering the assessee's explanations or documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order was passed in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. For justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide on merit after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the DVO's adopted rate of Rs. 2,168/- per Sq Ft was arbitrary. They noted that a comparable sale instance, which was closer to the assessee's plot and executed subsequently, had a rate of Rs. 1,706/- per Sq Ft.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of accounts were audited and showed cash deposits out of cash sales, which were offered to tax. Allowing the addition would result in double taxation, as the income was already offered for tax. The AO did not dispute the sales or reject the books of accounts. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the AO's estimation to be based on conjecture and not supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee employee cannot be forced to make good the shortfall in the deposit of TDS by the employer. Once tax is deducted at source by the employer, the assessee has no further control over its deposit. The Revenue should proceed against the employer for recovery. In this case, since the employer is under liquidation, no action can be taken against them. The Tribunal found support in the Delhi High Court's decision in Shri Chintan Bindra Vs. DCIT, which held that Section 205 of the Act bars direct demand on the assessee for tax deducted at source, and such demands cannot be enforced coercively or adjusted against future refunds. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO not to recover any demand from the assessee, allowing the AO to proceed against the employer for recovery.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues in all three appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues in all three appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the wrong provision was referred to while filing Form 10AB. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to rectify the provisions under which the application is to be filed.