Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on a factual error, misconstruing the VSVS declaration for a penalty as applicable to the quantum additions. Both parties agreed that the matter required reconsideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal *ex-parte* without considering its merits, as such a dismissal is not permissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and established legal precedents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The tribunal also noted that CPC is empowered to make adjustments under section 143(1) for incorrect claims apparent from the return.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed by an AO without valid jurisdiction and with an invalid notice under Section 143(2), thus vitiating the entire assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment, considering all submissions and evidence. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, stating that belated deposit of employee's EPF contribution is deemed income and not deductible. The Assessing Officer had not conducted any inquiry regarding the delayed payment.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted out of email communication, the notices were not properly served, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had opted for physical delivery of notices and against email communication in Form 35, and the revenue failed to prove service through any other mode. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's non-representation was bona fide and not intentional avoidance, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT, citing the Bombay High Court, held that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of an appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it summarily for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity and directing the CIT(A) to pass an order within three months.
The tribunal noted the assessee's contention of not receiving email notices as they opted out in Form 35. It decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority for a de novo adjudication within three months, providing the assessee one final opportunity for a proper hearing, contingent on their cooperation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a perverse order by stating wrong facts regarding the penalty amount and failed to examine the assessee's reasonable cause under Section 273B. Considering the assessee's submission about the voluminous nature of information and no intention to avoid proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not validly put on notice due to the incorrect email ID, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal held that it was mandatory for the AO to refer the property's valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2) read with Section 55A of the Act, given that the assessee claimed the fair market value was less than the stamp duty valuation. The CIT(Appeals) erred by upholding the AO's decision, which was deemed arbitrary and bad in law for not making the mandatory reference.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities have a responsibility to investigate the matter thoroughly to determine if tax evasion occurred due to sham transactions. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities have a responsibility to investigate the matter thoroughly to determine if tax evasion occurred due to sham transactions. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a specific opportunity to the assessee to rebut the observed violations after its final submission on 18.12.2024. Upholding principles of natural justice, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted one last opportunity to provide evidence and submissions to counter the findings regarding Section 13(1)(b) and their eligibility for registration.
The Tribunal found that hearing notices from the Ld. CIT(A) were indeed sent to a wrong email ID, constituting a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication, with directions for proper service of notices. The Tribunal also observed that the serious allegations of accommodation entries and tax evasion require thorough investigation by the revenue authorities regarding potential fraud.
The Tribunal held that to avail the benefit of Section 115BAB, Form 10ID must be filed on or before the due date specified for furnishing the first return of income. Since the assessee failed to comply with this mandatory condition, the benefit was rightly denied.
The Tribunal condoned the 27-day delay, acknowledging the reasons were circumstantial and not malicious. However, it upheld the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding that the appeal against the section 143(1) intimation was indeed infructuous, as a subsequent assessment under section 143(3) had been completed, subsuming the earlier intimation. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were conducted by an officer lacking valid jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It was held that there is a need for ground verification, detailed examination of facts, and corroborative evidence, particularly concerning the admission by Shri B.L. Agrawal, CMD, and its relevance to the assessee's group. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after detailed verification and enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It was held that there is a need for ground verification, detailed examination of facts, and corroborative evidence, particularly concerning the admission by Shri B.L. Agrawal, CMD, and its relevance to the assessee's group. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after detailed verification and enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It was held that there is a need for ground verification, detailed examination of facts, and corroborative evidence, particularly concerning the admission by Shri B.L. Agrawal, CMD, and its relevance to the assessee's group. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after detailed verification and enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It was held that there is a need for ground verification, detailed examination of facts, and corroborative evidence, particularly concerning the admission by Shri B.L. Agrawal, CMD, and its relevance to the assessee's group. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after detailed verification and enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It was held that there is a need for ground verification, detailed examination of facts, and corroborative evidence, particularly concerning the admission by Shri B.L. Agrawal, CMD, and its relevance to the assessee's group. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after detailed verification and enquiry under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving multiple opportunities. Following a similar precedent, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to represent his case on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters back for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided an unreasonably short period for the assessee to respond, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the AO's order and the notice under Section 148 were quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) is statutorily bound to dispose of appeals on their merits and cannot summarily dismiss them solely on grounds of delay or non-prosecution. The ITAT condoned the remaining 67-day delay, deeming it unintentional, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, directing the CIT(A) to examine the genuineness of the share capital and share premium transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the 485-day delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's health issues and limited understanding, and applying a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedents. On the merits of the case, considering the assessee's repeated failure to provide evidence for the agricultural income claim and the request for a final opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to comply with notices and present all necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the authenticity of the disputed land sale agreement was sub-judice before a Civil Court and that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not fully considered additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is directed to re-adjudicate after considering all additional evidence and awaiting the Civil Court's determination of the document's validity.
The Tribunal condoned the 485-day delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's health issues and limited understanding, and applying a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedents. On the merits of the case, considering the assessee's repeated failure to provide evidence for the agricultural income claim and the request for a final opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to comply with notices and present all necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters back for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided an unreasonably short period for the assessee to respond, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the AO's order and the notice under Section 148 were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and, following a similar precedent, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate its claims on merits. However, the Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to comply or prove non-involvement, the additions will be sustained.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. It emphasized that the case involved serious allegations of unaccounted investments and money rotation, necessitating a detailed examination by the CIT(A)/NFAC to determine if fraudulent transactions were used for tax evasion. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that fraud vitiates all acts and that parties approaching the court must come with clean hands.
Following a precedent set by the ITAT Division Bench, Raipur, for similar ex-parte dismissals, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority for a de novo adjudication, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present his case on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case to the AO. This remand was deemed correct as it allows the AO to properly verify and consider the new documents and facts, including the assessee's death, which were first presented during the appellate stage. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's adjournment application to ensure timely delivery of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the facts and circumstances of the case before deciding the appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,42,500 as unexplained money. The assessee's claim that no books of account were required under Section 44AD was not accepted as a reason for not providing corroborative evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the taxability of compensation under the NHAI Act is not a mistake apparent from the record and that Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is not applicable to acquisitions under the NHAI Act. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte due to non-service of notices on the assessee's preferred email ID, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that according to Section 80AC read with Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, deductions under Chapter VI-A are permissible only if the return is filed within the specified due date. The Tribunal emphasized its role as a statutory body to interpret fiscal statutes strictly and thus could not condone the one-day delay, differentiating its powers from those of a Constitutional Authority like a High Court.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order which had remanded both issues (TDS credit and employee's PF contribution) to the Assessing Officer (AO). The ITAT agreed that the AO should examine updated Form 26AS for TDS credit and original challans for PF deposits to verify the assessee's claims. Consequently, the assessee's appeal to the ITAT for direct relief was dismissed as the remand order was affirmed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. It confirmed the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's claims regarding mechanical reopening or unserved notices. The tribunal also sustained the addition of Rs. 11,71,105/- as unexplained income, as the assessee failed to provide any verifiable evidence for the source of these cash deposits or prove engagement in business activities.
The Tribunal noted the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance despite multiple opportunities. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal deemed it fit to grant the assessee one final opportunity to represent their case on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, with a caveat that additions would be sustained if there is further non-compliance or failure to explain cash deposits.