Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Learned Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had only 'sent' notices for hearing, but they were not 'served' on the assessee, thus denying a due opportunity of being heard. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee claimed that due to the age and illiteracy of its members, they could not understand the notice and comply with the order. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities to the assessee to respond, but the assessee failed to do so. However, the Tribunal also noted that the AO had passed an ex-parte order, and the assessee claimed to be unaware of the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal heard both parties and noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection. The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The ITAT noted that the assessee had filed the appeal inadvertently and that the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench had already adjudicated the matter in a separate appeal. Therefore, the ITAT found no reason to proceed with the current appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC taxed the income at the maximum marginal rate without complete material. The assessee's representative submitted that due to misunderstanding, notices could not be complied with. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO.
The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing and failure to provide a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee did not have sufficient opportunities to present their case and decided to give one more opportunity.
The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing and failure to provide a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee did not have sufficient opportunities to present their case and decided to give one more opportunity.
The assessee's counsel submitted a letter praying for the withdrawal of the appeal, to which the Revenue's representative had no objection. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and could not plead their case effectively because the notices were not demonstrably served. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had appeared before the AO and furnished all documents. Citing the principles of natural justice and fair play, which mandate granting sufficient opportunity to the affected party, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to contest their stand forthwith. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits, without delving deeper into the merits of the case at this stage. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that during the proceedings before the CIT(E), two notices of hearings were issued, and in one instance, the assessee sought an adjournment, while in the second instance, the assessee did not file the required documents and evidence. Consequently, the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order rejecting the applications. Before the Tribunal, the assessee expressed readiness to file the required documents and evidence. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), found it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(E). The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh on merits. The assessees were directed to file the required documents and evidence as and when called upon by the CIT(E). For statistical purposes, both appeals were treated as allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a retired teacher with pension income, claimed unawareness of online proceedings and inability to reply to notices due to lack of knowledge. The Tribunal observed that notices dated 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024 were allegedly not served on the assessee, and the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of these notices. Finding that the assessee did not get a due opportunity to explain their case before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to quash the order and remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee will be given an opportunity to appear before the AO, file a return of income, and submit requested documents. The ratio decidendi is that an assessee must be afforded a proper opportunity of being heard before an assessment order is finalized, especially when procedural lapses or non-service of notices are alleged. The Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT has issued instructions providing a blanket exemption of Rs. 2,50,000/- per person for cash deposits made during the demonetization period, particularly for small assessees. The assessee's case falls within this exemption limit.
The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 42,45,630, which formed the basis for the turnover threshold and subsequent penalty, was deleted by the CIT(A). Since the foundation for the penalty (i.e., the turnover exceeding the threshold) failed, the penalty under section 271B was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient cause due to the ill health of its key office bearers. The Tribunal held that the reasons provided in the affidavit were convincing and constituted a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, applying a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' in the interest of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should re-examine the documents and evidence submitted by the assessee in light of the assessee's written submissions. The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that registration under state laws might be practically difficult and could lead to significant changes in the association's identity. The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(E) on this issue requires to be set aside and the matter needs to be looked into afresh by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allow them to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits, as the grounds raised, particularly concerning the non-credit of carry forward loss, were relevant to the order under section 143(1) and the issues were inter-related. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to ignore the ground related to section 154 and adjudicate the appeal on merits after considering the documents and evidences filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty is directly linked to the quantum addition. If the quantum addition is deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty would not stand. Therefore, the penalty appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate it based on the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking. The assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that due to a change in the assessee's email ID, they could not comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee had complied with the proceedings before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the assessee's request. Consequently, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that during the proceedings before the CIT(E), two notices of hearings were issued, and in one instance, the assessee sought an adjournment, while in the second instance, the assessee did not file the required documents and evidence. Consequently, the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order rejecting the applications. Before the Tribunal, the assessee expressed readiness to file the required documents and evidence. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), found it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(E). The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh on merits. The assessees were directed to file the required documents and evidence as and when called upon by the CIT(E). For statistical purposes, both appeals were treated as allowed.
The Tribunal determined that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case, noting the ex-parte disposal by CIT(A) and the AO's failure to address notice service. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to comply with four notices issued by the learned CIT(A), with the only compliance being a request for adjournment. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessee was not interested in contesting the case. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had only filed partial submissions before the AO, stating that the remaining submissions would be filed later, which led to an ex-parte assessment order under section 144. Considering that the assessee deserves an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. This decision was made to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a consequential order as per the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn as the Revenue did not raise any objection.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively present their case before the CIT(A), potentially due to not receiving notices. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was ex-parte and the assessee did not comply with notices for hearings before the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's representative requested one more opportunity and the revenue did not object, the Tribunal decided to grant another chance. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the department for the non-cooperative attitude and lack of clarity regarding notice service.
The Tribunal observed that the case was not adjudicated on merits by the lower authorities, and the CIT(A)'s order was silent on proper service of notices, especially considering the assessee's claim of illiteracy. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit, granting the assessee a due opportunity to be heard.
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was rejected, holding that the mistake could not be rectified under section 154. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead their case successfully and that principles of natural justice require sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance with notices, which the assessee claimed were not served. The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to explain their case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271DA was not leviable for the entire amount, but was restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/-. This was based on the interpretation of Section 269ST and relevant CBDT circulars regarding aggregation of cash receipts.
The assessee's counsel requested withdrawal of the appeal, stating that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271DA was not leviable for the entire amount, but was restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/-. This was based on the interpretation of Section 269ST and relevant CBDT circulars regarding aggregation of cash receipts.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The delay in filing the return of income was condoned, which was the sole ground for the rejection of the assessee's claim under section 80P of the Act.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal noted that while notices were issued, their service on the assessee was not explicitly detailed. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the order of the Learned CIT(A) was set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer was affirmed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the additions on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by the Tribunal itself in a prior appeal (IT(SS)A No. 420 & 440/Rjt/2017). Although the Revenue had challenged this deletion before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and affirm the AO's order implies that the penalty, which was consequential to the additions, should stand. The operative direction was that the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to a medical emergency in the family of the assessee's AR, supported by an affidavit and medical reports. The revenue did not object to this prayer. Regarding the opportunity to present the case, the Tribunal noted that the NFAC order was silent on the service of notices upon the assessee. It also observed that the assessment was framed under section 144 of the Act, and the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, indicating a lack of due care and a non-cooperative attitude. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Department with DLSA. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to submit all required documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order mentioned issuing notices on specific dates but did not elaborate on their service upon the assessee. It also observed that the AO had passed an ex-parte order. However, the assessee had filed a return of income in response to the notice under Section 148. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case before the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days, noting that the assessee had provided medical certificates and reports to substantiate the severe illness of his wife, which caused tension in the family and prevented him from filing the appeal on time. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of advancing substantial justice. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the non-service of notices on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessing officer failed to appreciate that the deposits were realized from debtors and opening cash balances, as evidenced by balance sheets and cashbooks from previous years. The lower authorities did not appreciate or refute the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee admitted not furnishing requisite details to the AO. However, the Tribunal also observed that the assessee filed an affidavit as additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal pointed out that the affidavit pertained to the cultivation period of 2018-19 and was not relevant for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal further noted that the assessment order and appellate order indicated that the assessee had not submitted details regarding agricultural income, leading to the addition of Rs. 6,60,000/-. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's order was based on suspicion, with no material on record proving the agricultural income was wrongly calculated. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had furnished land records before the AO and that the requirements of Section 68 of the Act were not satisfied. Consequently, the Tribunal held that Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and AO and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to comply with the notice, and also cancelled the additional evidence (affidavit) submitted during appellate proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Revenue's counsel had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal recorded the assessee's statement of withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate enquiries and conducted necessary examinations on the various issues raised by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers, which followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT. This precedent established that if the assessee has produced relevant material and offered explanations, and the AO has considered them and come to a definite conclusion, the mere fact that a different view can be taken should not be the basis for an action under section 263. The Tribunal also referred to Smt. Juthika Kar vs. ITO and CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd., emphasizing that revision proceedings under section 263 are not sustainable if adequate enquiries have been conducted and the AO has formed a conclusion based on those enquiries, even if another person might draw a different conclusion. Therefore, the proceedings under section 263 were considered uncalled for. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the profit estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the facts of the assessee's case and the circumstance that the assessee's business was closed down during the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation should not be arbitrary, nor a rule of thumb, and must vary with the nature of the business, based on material on record and past records, considering the totality of facts. It stated that only real income, not notional or astronomical income, can be taxed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was selling goods at below cost due to business closure, resulting in hardly any profit. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the Gross Profit (GP) percentage at 2% on sales, as this method was approximately nearer to the truth given the facts and circumstances. The addition was thus restricted to 2% GP on sales.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.