Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without addressing the merits, thereby violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Both the quantum addition appeal and the penalty appeal were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide the assessee a final opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings based on a change of opinion without new tangible material are not permissible. The addition for unsecured loans was deleted, and the disallowance for interest was restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal found that 'reasonable cause' existed for the 30-month delay, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the tax consultant's demise. Citing judicial precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that a mere technical error in selecting the wrong sub-clause in the application form should not disentitle the appellant to its rightful claim for 12A registration. Following similar precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for de novo consideration, allowing the appellant to file the correct application. The appeal for 80G(5) rejection was also remitted back to the CIT(E) for adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay, finding it not intentional but due to a reasonable and bona fide mistake. Observing that the CIT (Exemption) had not fully considered the assessee's submissions and further details were required, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence of charitable activities.
The Tribunal noted a new proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) empowering the Commissioner to condone delay for reasonable cause. Acknowledging the assessee's charitable activities and the new provision, the Tribunal found it appropriate to condone the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that a mere technical error in selecting the wrong sub-clause in the application form should not disentitle the appellant to its rightful claim for 12A registration. Following similar precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for de novo consideration, allowing the appellant to file the correct application. The appeal for 80G(5) rejection was also remitted back to the CIT(E) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative credit society from deposits, even with non-co-operative banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. The Assessing Officer had erred by taxing the same income twice.
The Tribunal held that the income offered for AY 2006-07 was notional and not real income, as the project activities commenced later. Since the actual income from the joint venture was offered to tax in the correct assessment years, the deduction under Section 80IB(10) for AY 2006-07 was not allowable.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative credit society from deposits, even with non-co-operative banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. The Assessing Officer had erred by taxing the same income twice.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessee with the reasons recorded for reopening, despite a clear and specific request. This non-compliance is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings untenable and bad in law, as per established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the disputed cash being from prior withdrawals. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the sum as business receipt and applied the presumptive taxation scheme at 8%. This resulted in sustaining an addition of Rs. 85,095/- (8% of Rs. 10,63,680/-) and deleting the remaining addition of Rs. 9,78,585/-.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the 2552-day delay, finding it neither intentional nor deliberate, and admitted the appeal for adjudication, relying on Apex Court precedents. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, while also instructing the assessee to be vigilant and update contact information.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. It ruled that the reassessment proceedings were valid because the escaped income of Rs.1,55,38,905/- was above the Rs.50 lakh threshold, making the notice under Section 148 within time. The addition under Section 69A was justified as the assessee failed to furnish any details regarding the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to record the requisite satisfaction as per Section 14A(2) before applying Rule 8D. Relying on various High Court precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that recording satisfaction with cogent reasons is a mandatory pre-condition. Consequently, the disallowance was found to be unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the unsecured loans were indeed credit balances brought forward from preceding years and were not received in the current year. It was observed that audited balance sheets and confirmation accounts supported this fact. Consequently, Section 68 was deemed inapplicable as the primary condition for its invocation (sum credited in the books in the previous year) was not met, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had quashed the assessment order on the ground that the Section 153A notice was invalid and that no incriminating material was found at the assessee's premises, suggesting proceedings should have been under Section 153C. The Tribunal, respectfully following a Delhi High Court decision, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of events leading to the issue of a second notice (if any) under Section 153A, whether a return was filed in response, if Section 142(1) notices were issued, and whether the assessment order was based on a defective or correct notice. The CIT(A) was also to decide the validity of the assessment and the issue of jurisdiction before scrutinizing credit entries under Section 68. The penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the initial deletion was based on the defective assessment order. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that all reassessment notices issued under section 148 on or after 1st April 2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 are invalid and must be dropped. Consequently, the notice issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 was found to be bad in law, and the assessment order passed under section 147 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the case on its merits because the assessee failed to appear. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order as per section 250(6). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to provide the assessee one final opportunity to present all necessary details and arguments concerning the validity of re-assessment proceedings and the merits of additions. The assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes, implying a re-adjudication at the AO level.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance, partly due to the assessee's demise during the proceedings, and had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the legal heir. Considering the legal heir's contentions regarding the source of deposits and the procedural lapse, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore all issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication and a speaking order under Section 250(6) of the Act.
The ITAT, citing Supreme Court judgments, found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal (non-receipt of the assessment order due to inactive email ID and subsequent illness). It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging 'reasonable cause' based on the Supreme Court's ruling in *Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.*. As the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on its merits, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, setting aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not leviable as the assessee had voluntarily withdrawn the claim and the issue was debatable due to prior judicial precedents. Furthermore, the penalty order was passed against a merged entity, rendering it void.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication. It noted that the assessee is not a bank and is eligible for deductions under Section 80P, referencing Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to consider the issue of late filing in light of the Supreme Court's COVID-19 related limitation extension.
The Tribunal held that the bank FDR interest and the interest paid on the cash credit account were part of the business transactions of the erstwhile chemical business. Therefore, the assessee was eligible to claim the interest expenditure against the gross interest received on bank FDRs.
The Tribunal condoned the 365-day delay due to 'reasonable cause'. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had quashed the assessment order on the ground that the Section 153A notice was invalid and that no incriminating material was found at the assessee's premises, suggesting proceedings should have been under Section 153C. The Tribunal, respectfully following a Delhi High Court decision, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of events leading to the issue of a second notice (if any) under Section 153A, whether a return was filed in response, if Section 142(1) notices were issued, and whether the assessment order was based on a defective or correct notice. The CIT(A) was also to decide the validity of the assessment and the issue of jurisdiction before scrutinizing credit entries under Section 68. The penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the initial deletion was based on the defective assessment order. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the chronology of notices and the basis of the assessment order, and then decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 703-day delay, finding 'reasonable cause'. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present evidence and be heard, ensuring a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 powers. The AO had made due inquiry and taken a plausible view based on existing case law, satisfying the twin conditions for a valid assessment. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that revision proceedings under Section 263 initiated solely based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer, without the PCIT applying independent mind and forming his own satisfaction, are not in accordance with law. The Tribunal quashed the revision proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. The Assessing Officer also failed to provide necessary documents as per jurisdictional High Court directions.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. Citing the Calcutta High Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ITO vs. Aastha Goel, the Tribunal held that even if the assessee does not specifically request it, the Assessing Officer has a duty to act fairly and refer the matter to the DVO to avoid miscarriage of justice, especially when the assessee has provided a valuation report from a registered valuer and there is a dispute regarding the FMV. The Tribunal noted that Section 55A mandates such a reference when the AO disagrees with the FMV declared by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO for determination of the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and decide the issue thereafter. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in making additions based on the incriminating material found during the search of the third party, which contained transactions of the assessee and other group concerns. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to controvert these transactions in their statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during their own search. Therefore, the transactions appearing in the seized material took the shape of incriminating material found during the course of search in the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that although Assessment Year 2012-13 was a completed and unabated assessment year, the AO rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act due to the discovery of incriminating material with a direct bearing on the financial transactions and modus operandi of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. For Kohinoor Development Corporation, similar issues were raised regarding cash loans and undisclosed interest income, and the Tribunal applied its decision in Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal's case, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding and allowing the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in making additions based on the incriminating material found during the search of the third party, which contained transactions of the assessee and other group concerns. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to controvert these transactions in their statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during their own search. Therefore, the transactions appearing in the seized material took the shape of incriminating material found during the course of search in the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that although Assessment Year 2012-13 was a completed and unabated assessment year, the AO rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act due to the discovery of incriminating material with a direct bearing on the financial transactions and modus operandi of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. For Kohinoor Development Corporation, similar issues were raised regarding cash loans and undisclosed interest income, and the Tribunal applied its decision in Krishnakumar Kishorilal Goyal's case, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding and allowing the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal observed the conflicting claims regarding the submission of details. To ensure natural justice and give the assessee a fair chance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to submit all requisite details without further adjournment.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. and Rajeev Bansal), held that the notice issued under section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 on 26.07.2022 was time-barred as it was issued after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice and the resulting assessment order were declared bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that petrol pump dealers were permitted to accept specified bank notes during demonetization, suggesting a possibility of some deposits arising from cash sales. Despite the assessee's failure to fully justify cash withdrawals or provide detailed records, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restricted the addition to Rs.32,47,125/-, which is 50% of the original amount added by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), noting that the assessee contended the property was purchased by a firm (M/s Om Developers) in which he is a partner, not by him individually. The matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering all submissions, and passing a speaking order as per law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the death of the assessee's CA to be a reasonable cause. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits of the issues raised, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the delay was due to reasonable cause and unintentional technical glitches. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order as per section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that the non-issue of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, even if the return in response to Section 148 was filed belatedly, renders the reassessment proceedings null and void. It clarified that Section 292BB of the Act applies to defects in service of notice, not to the complete non-issue of a mandatory notice. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this preliminary legal ground, thus quashing the reassessment order.