Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that once provisional registrations were granted and remained in force without formal revocation, the CIT(E) could not unilaterally declare them invalid to reject applications for regular registration. It found that the applications for regular registration were filed within the prescribed time limits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for a de-novo consideration on merits, with directions to provide the assessee three effective hearing opportunities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's genuine reasons and reliance on his accountant. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, concluding that the AO did not have territorial jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and any exercise of power inconsistent with statutory prescription is invalid. The assessee's objection to jurisdiction was found to be timely.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the addition without properly verifying the evidence presented by the assessee, including bank statements and Dena Bank's reply confirming the KCC loan and agricultural income. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on "guess work and surmises" rather than proper verification, and therefore, directed the A.O. to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that once provisional registrations were granted and remained in force without formal revocation, the CIT(E) could not unilaterally declare them invalid to reject applications for regular registration. It found that the applications for regular registration were filed within the prescribed time limits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for a de-novo consideration on merits, with directions to provide the assessee three effective hearing opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid and void ab initio because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued to the assessee. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also rendered non-est.
The Tribunal held that since both the return of income and the audit report were filed within the extended due date as notified by the CBDT, there was no default in complying with the provisions of Section 12A. The Act does not mandate that the audit report must be filed simultaneously with or prior to the return, only that it be filed within the prescribed date. Consequently, the denial of exemption by the tax authorities was erroneous and the CPC was directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits, emphasizing compliance with principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal affirmed that the option to avail the New Tax Regime under Section 115BAC(5) must be exercised within the due date for filing the original return under Section 139(1). As the revised return, opting for the New Tax Regime, was filed beyond this due date, the option was invalid, and fiscal statutes demand strict compliance.
The Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter, directing the ITAT to restore the appeal and decide it on merits, given that the DTVSV benefit was not availed. Subsequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to conduct a factual verification, requiring the assessee to provide evidence for correlating impounded loose papers with books of accounts and to determine if books are maintained, potentially calling for a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 144 of the Act was invalid and bad in law because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The ITAT, considering the Senior DR's concession and invoking principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to comply and present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act within three months.
The ITAT condoned the 189-day delay, finding no deliberate misconduct by the assessee and noting that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, the ITAT emphasized that appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them in limine for delay or non-prosecution. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits within three months.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee should not suffer for the counsel's staff's inaction. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for both assessment years and remanded the matters back. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to conduct a proper inquiry to ascertain the exact period of delay, consider the assessee's submissions for condonation of delay, and pass speaking orders as per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for both assessment years and remanded the matters back. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to conduct a proper inquiry to ascertain the exact period of delay, consider the assessee's submissions for condonation of delay, and pass speaking orders as per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.