Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal, after reviewing a report from the AO, concluded that ITO-4(3) and ITO-4(5) were under the same jurisdictional range, thus a specific transfer order u/s 127 was not required. The legal ground raised by the assessee was therefore dismissed. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case to the AO for fresh consideration of the merits, as the assessee would get an opportunity to present all evidence.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) due to non-compliance, set aside the order of the CIT(A). Following a precedent, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee fails to comply or explain the cash deposits, the additions would be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance, and principles of natural justice required remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was given a final opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned an 8-day delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case on merits, emphasizing the need for detailed verification regarding potential fraud and tax evasion.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. It granted the assessee a final opportunity to present its case on merits, directing the CIT(A) to conduct a detailed verification to ascertain if there was tax evasion or fraud, citing that fraud vitiates everything including natural justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It was held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No.09/2024, and the Pr. CIT failed to provide reasons or evidence to support his claim that the case fell under an exception, the appeal was not maintainable. The Pr. CIT's decision was deemed arbitrary, perverse, and bereft of reasoning.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT, considering the principles of natural justice and relying on various judicial precedents, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to represent its case on merits, with a direction to pass an order within three months as per Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to comply with the hearing notices and was permitted to file documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, which set aside the original assessment and remanded the case to the A.O. for fresh assessment and potential initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D. The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the cash loan was a wrong statement of fact, but since no documentary evidence was provided for transactions through banking channels, the Pr. CIT's order for factual verification was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) orders did not reflect any adjudication on merits, only dealing with adjournment requests. To uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee a fair opportunity, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all three assessment years. The cases were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to fully participate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper adjudication on merits. Following the principle of natural justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order perverse, cryptic, vague, and ambiguous, as it deleted the entire substantial addition based on verification of a minor portion of cash deposits without conducting a proper independent inquiry into the source of the remaining large sum. The CIT(A) also failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication with a clear direction to conduct necessary verification of facts regarding the source of all cash deposits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) orders did not reflect any adjudication on merits, only dealing with adjournment requests. To uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee a fair opportunity, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all three assessment years. The cases were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to fully participate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) orders did not reflect any adjudication on merits, only dealing with adjournment requests. To uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee a fair opportunity, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all three assessment years. The cases were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to fully participate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication.
Following the High Court's mandate, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the entire matter to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The CIT(A) is directed to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer after due factual verification of the new evidences and then pass a speaking order according to law and natural justice.
The ITAT found the delay to be unintentional, not malafide, and primarily caused by a change of counsel. Following judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Court, the Tribunal condoned the 405-day delay and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits in accordance with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act, and principles of natural justice.