Loading ITAT cases…
103 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back. The assessee was given a final opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory procedural requirement for assessments framed under sections 143(3) and 144. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment invalid and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory procedural requirement for assessments framed under sections 143(3) and 144. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment invalid and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the net profit rate applied by the AO was not based on comparable cases or past trends. The reasoning of the CIT(A) for not admitting additional evidence was also found unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal, relying on various judicial pronouncements, including Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices, despite reasonable opportunities being provided. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the fact that the assessee claimed non-receipt of physical notices and inability to access electronic communications, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed that this be a final opportunity for the assessee to comply with hearing notices and represent the matter on merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding them on merits. The CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals in writing with well-reasoned orders, even if the assessee does not appear, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding them on merits. The CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals in writing with well-reasoned orders, even if the assessee does not appear, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that estimated additions cannot be made without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowances were based on guesswork and surmises.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply and present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, erred by not considering the additional evidence without cogent reasons. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals back for fresh consideration, with directions to admit and consider the additional evidence and issue a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, erred by not considering the additional evidence without cogent reasons. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals back for fresh consideration, with directions to admit and consider the additional evidence and issue a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that in cases of ex-parte orders due to non-compliance by the assessee, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was given a final opportunity to comply and represent the matter on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to appear and present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to decide the issue of bogus purchase bills as it is sub-judice before the High Court. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh after the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to decide the issue of bogus purchase bills as it is sub-judice before the High Court. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh after the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal allowed one final opportunity to the assessee to present evidence regarding the delay to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to decide on the condonation of delay and then proceed to decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal based on an incorrect assumption about the VSVS application. Without commenting on the merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matters on merits, with the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matters on merits, with the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matters on merits, with the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matters on merits, with the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the reasonable cause and lack of prejudice to the revenue. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not well-reasoned and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for all assessment years and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal reasoned that while the assessee had failed to comply with notices, leading to ex-parte orders, principles of natural justice and the scheme of the Act necessitate providing a final opportunity for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority and must pass a speaking order after adjudication. Allowing the Tribunal to decide legal grounds on an ex-parte order would usurp the CIT(Appeals)'s power and dismantle the legislative structure. The Tribunal directed the assessee to comply with hearing notices and represent the matters on merits, and the CIT(Appeals) to provide a reasonable opportunity and pass an order within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for assessments framed under Section 143(3) and 147. The absence of such a notice renders the assessment invalid and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matters on merits, with the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive issues in law and facts were sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the High Court's decision.