Loading ITAT cases…
46 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was arbitrary and bad in law, as the AO and CIT(Appeals) failed to apply the correct provisions of the Act. The Tribunal noted that if any addition was to be made, it should have been under Section 69A for unexplained money, not Section 68 for cash credits.
The ITAT noted the assessee's submission that the delay was covered by the Supreme Court's suo moto extension due to Covid-19, a point not presented to the CIT(A). With no objection from the CIT-DR, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to first decide the issue of condonation of delay after allowing the assessee to furnish evidence, and if condoned, then to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal allowed the application for admission of additional evidence, with no objection from the Sr. DR. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, directing the first appellate authority to consider the admitted evidence after obtaining a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order as per law.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance, and without substantial adjudication, the matter should be remanded. This ensures the principles of natural justice are followed by providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted on a third party and not the assessee, the assessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A, not Section 147/148. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's additions were based on presumption and conjecture without independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. The AO failed to establish the assessee's involvement in bogus transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation and the principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given a final opportunity to present their case on merits. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance, and without substantial adjudication, the matter should be remanded. This ensures the principles of natural justice are followed by providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance, and without substantial adjudication, the matter should be remanded. This ensures the principles of natural justice are followed by providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted on a third party and not the assessee, the assessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A, not Section 147/148. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned the 121-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be bonafide and attributable to professional advice. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case to the AO for fresh assessment, considering the original assessment was completed under Section 144 and additional evidence was submitted for the first time before the CIT(A). This remand ensures natural justice and allows the AO to verify the new evidence and pass a speaking order as per Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance, and without substantial adjudication, the matter should be remanded. This ensures the principles of natural justice are followed by providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation and the principles of natural justice require a final opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order did not sufficiently address the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice and citing the Income Tax Act as welfare legislation, found no evidence of mala fide conduct by the assessee. It set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to be heard and comply with notices.
The tribunal noted that the A.O. failed to prove malafide intent or direct benefit to the assessee from the alleged bogus transactions, or provide evidence to justify the 100% addition under Section 69C. It upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that a 12.5% addition, as conceded by the assessee, was appropriate.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was perverse as it relied on submissions not examined by the AO and violated principles of natural justice and Rule 46A. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) in quashing the penalty. It was held that the assessee had withdrawn the claim for exemption, and the department had not made sufficient inquiries to disprove the claim. The Tribunal noted that merely agreeing to an addition does not automatically imply concealment, and the AO had not adequately established how the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to comply with Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by admitting additional evidence and granting relief without first procuring a remand report or comments from the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after obtaining the necessary remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred by relying on a High Court decision which was subsequently distinguished by the same court. It held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, and if not proven, Section 69C of the Act is attracted, meaning the entire unproven expenditure should be added, not just a percentage. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's ruling in Pr. CIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the calculation of turnover from F&O transactions and the nature of other income needed verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-computation and fresh adjudication of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish any direct involvement of the assessee in price rigging or in connivance with entry providers to obtain bogus LTCG. The transactions were through banking channels and stock exchange with STT paid.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, finding them crucial for proper adjudication and their earlier non-submission due to bona fide reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to examine the applicability of the second proviso to Section 12A(2) regarding the retrospective benefit of registration granted under Section 12AA. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the addition under Section 68 and remanded it to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, finding the CIT(Appeals)'s order lacked independent application of mind. The disallowances of expenses were also set aside due to lack of justification and reasoning by the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's reasons for the delay and had not provided an opportunity to substantiate them. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the delay and then a decision on merits.
Following judicial precedents regarding ex-parte orders passed by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is to be provided a final opportunity of being heard, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, and must comply with hearing notices. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC erred by admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules and Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a proper remand report. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous since they had no grievance and did not file an application under Rule 27.
The ITAT, referencing a Bombay High Court judgment, ruled that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vitiated as the Assessing Officer failed to record specific satisfaction regarding under-reporting or misreporting of income. The additions were made on an estimate basis, which is excluded from the definition of under-reported income under Section 270A(6)(c).
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the substantial addition without proper application of mind, without calling for a remand report from the AO, and by accepting new evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision in accordance with law, giving due opportunity to the assessee and allowing the CIT(A) to seek a remand report from the AO if deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct proper inquiries, did not follow principles of natural justice, and lacked reasoning in their orders. Consequently, the additions of Rs.3,00,000/- for unexplained capital and Rs.2,06,400/- for disallowed interest were found to be misplaced, illegal, and without authority of law. Both additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, finding that the A.O.'s original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The A.O. had failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications regarding the taxability of capital gains from the sale of properties which were clearly urban land within municipal limits, and had restricted the assessment only to cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the property valuation to the DVO, as mandated by the third proviso to Section 56(2)(x) and Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, especially when the assessee disputed the stamp duty value and the transaction involved tribal land. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO with a direction to refer it to the DVO.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that one more opportunity should be granted to substantiate the reasons for delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Following natural justice principles, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for *de novo* adjudication on the condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall decide the remaining issues on merits; otherwise, the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal condoned the 299-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the lack of a counter-affidavit from the Revenue. However, despite multiple opportunities, the assessee largely failed to appear or represent their case on merits before the Tribunal. After reviewing the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, confirming that the AO's original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the lack of proper inquiry into significant escapement of income.
Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them merely for non-prosecution. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits within three months.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) failed to fulfill the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) by not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on the merits of the bogus purchases, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles and the relevant sections of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) summarily upheld the addition without proper enquiry or reasoning, violating Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. It also noted the CIT(A)'s failure to adjudicate the assessee's additional ground regarding unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and a speaking order after due enquiry.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, confirming the addition of Rs. 20,81,900/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This amount was subjected to tax under section 115BBE. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence for the source of the cash deposits, dismissing the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer's assessment was done summarily without proper inquiry. The Tribunal found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Despite the assessee's non-appearance for multiple hearings, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, confirming that the AO's original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the failure to properly inquire into the estimated net profit and the applicability of Section 44AB. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was done in a summary manner without proper verification.