Loading ITAT cases…
217 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) without examining the merits. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 60.00 lakh should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds challenging the validity of the notice u/s 148, citing issues of limitation and monetary thresholds for reopening, and the legality of the assessment proceedings. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal restored the entire matter, including both the legal issues and the merits of the addition, back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. Considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee and in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee and obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary documents. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal allowed the request in the absence of any objection from the DR.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid due to non-filing of return and lack of response to notices. Regarding the merits, while a portion of the addition was deleted, a net profit addition of Rs. 1,03,200/- was sustained based on estimated profit from cashew trading after considering available documents and liberal interpretation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not point out specific discrepancies and restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary documents. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not point out specific discrepancies and restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary documents. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.
In the absence of any objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's lack of response during assessment and appeal proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and in the absence of any objection from the DR, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that while the AO accepted the genuineness of some purchases and the assessee's business activity, an addition was made for unexplained expenditure under section 69C. Since the assessee could not provide details of sales against specific purchases, the profit was estimated at 10% on the alleged purchases.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims regarding the source of investments and credits. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal or furnish satisfactory evidence. However, considering that the husband's finances were audited and the assessee claimed to be in the business of trading sarees, the issues were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.