Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer conducted sufficient inquiry by issuing multiple notices and examining various documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days, finding mitigating circumstances. It noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte, and the assessee contended they did not receive proper notice. The Tribunal found the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as the assessee was not provided an opportunity for cross-examination of the third party whose statement formed the basis of the reopening. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had submitted substantial documentary evidence for the transactions.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable when the assessee has not actually received any exempt income during the year from assets capable of yielding exempt income, and no claim for exemption has been made. While acknowledging the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 which suggested that disallowance under Section 14A is not dependent on the actual presence of tax-free income, the Tribunal placed reliance on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Corretech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal reasoned that Rule 8D is merely a machinery provision and cannot override the main enactment. If the facts of the case warrant no disallowance, the computational provision does not come into play. Furthermore, CBDT circulars prejudicial to the assessee do not have binding force. Therefore, where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant financial year, the provisions of Section 14A would not operate. The disallowance made by the AO was consequently deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal quashed the order of the NFAC and allowed the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that while the return was filed late, the audit report was also not submitted to the lower authorities. Considering the Gujarat High Court's decision on condoning delays in filing audit reports, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of notices upon the assessee and that the appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO, leading to an assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dated February 6, 2024, and the AO's order dated December 8, 2017, were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to the assessee to submit all required documents, details, and evidences. The issue regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the merits of the addition under Section 68 were not decided by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, attributing it to a lack of awareness of tax compliance and non-receipt of notices at the correct email address. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal, noting that Section 253(5) empowers the ITAT to admit appeals filed after the prescribed time if sufficient cause is shown. The Tribunal then considered the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal in limine. Observing that the NFAC's order was silent on the service of notices and that the assessee claimed no access to the email ID used for communication, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and the AO's assessment order, remanding the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity to present their case and submit required documents.
The Tribunal noted that the initial Rs. 2,50,000 of the deposit falls under the blanket exemption provided by CBDT instructions for small depositors, especially considering the assessee's income was below the taxable limit. For the remaining Rs. 5,62,500, the Tribunal, considering the nature of the assessee's trading business and the submitted documents, restricted the disallowance to 10% of this amount.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits, and the notices for hearing were sent to the CA's email address, which the assessee was unaware of. Therefore, to provide an opportunity for the assessee to be heard, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the "on-money" was allegedly paid by K. Star Group for the acquisition of land. However, the assessee had sold the land as agricultural land to three individuals, not directly to K. Star Group. The seized documents were found from a third party and lacked signatures, making them unreliable. The High Court of Gujarat, in a similar case, held that the assessee cannot be held liable for 'on-money' if they were not the final seller to the entity that paid the alleged 'on-money'.
The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for regular registration and cancelled its provisional registration, holding that the application was premature as the trust was not provisionally registered. The Tribunal noted that the process of registration under Section 12AB is a preliminary stage to examine the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the time limit and without following the amended procedure and obtaining proper approval as per Section 151. Consequently, all other issues became academic.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.PCIT failed to provide specific comments on documents submitted by the assessee during the revisionary proceedings and did not examine their relevance or any patent errors. This was considered a violation of natural justice.
The assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal was heard and granted. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing his medical condition and the need to care for his wife, supported by the affidavit. The Tribunal also referred to Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had issued multiple notices but the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte order. However, the Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was silent on the proof of service of notices and that the NFAC had not decided the appeal as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the original assessment order was also passed ex-parte by the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to plead his case. Therefore, the order of the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the process of registration under section 12AB is a preliminary stage to examine the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities, not an income assessment. The CIT(E) should have evaluated the explanation objectively and sought further clarifications rather than summarily rejecting the application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal found a sufficient cause for the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not receive notices or orders because it lacked registration on the Income Tax e-mail ID portal and the e-filing portal. While noting the assessee's failure to comply with notices and its negligent and non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the case for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 2500 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 10 days and submit the receipt to the Registrar. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not submitted relevant documents to the CIT(A) and had not given due care and attention to the case, exhibiting a non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the matter for AY 2012-13. The assessment was framed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, and the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the AO. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of due care and non-cooperative attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents before the lower authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 10 days.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued several notices for hearing, but the appellant's responses were not proper, and no documents or evidence were submitted. However, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal was of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead their case before the Ld. CIT(A), as the principles of natural justice and fair play require that an affected party be granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The appeal for AY 2014-15, relating to penalty under section 272A(1)(d), was disposed of in the same terms. The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had issued four notices to the assessee, to which there was no compliance. However, the order of the CIT(A) was silent on the specific service of notices upon the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the notices were sent to an email address belonging to a previous consultant who did not inform the assessee about the proceedings and hearings. The Tribunal found that this was not a mistake attributable to the assessee and that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to explain their case before the NFAC. Since the Assessing Officer had also passed an ex-parte order under section 144 of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the NFAC and the AO. The Assessing Officer was directed to adjudicate the case afresh after providing due opportunity to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to comply with the notices and submit responses. The issue of whether the addition under section 69A and the estimated addition under section 44AD were erroneous was not decided on merits, as the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that several hearing notices were issued by the NFAC, but there was no compliance. The hearing notices were served on the assessee's email ID, which was delivered to her previous consultant, who, in turn, did not inform the assessee about the notices. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain her case before the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to submit relevant details, documents, and evidence if required by the NFAC for disposal of the appeal. The issue regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the addition of Rs. 44,45,939/- were implicitly left to be decided by the AO upon fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. However, regarding the additions for unexplained cash credits, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that four notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) but there was no compliance, leading to an ex-parte order. The primary reason for non-compliance was attributed to the consultant being busy with the treatment of his sister, who was suffering from cancer, with medical documents placed on record. Considering this, the Tribunal was of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present her case before the lower authority. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had passed an order under section 144 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices for hearing, to which the appellant had responded but without proper documentation. However, the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that while four notices were issued by the AO, there was no compliance from the assessee. However, the ex-parte order of the AO was silent on the service of notice upon the assessee. The Tribunal observed that a majority of the time deposits were auto-redeemed in the subsequent month and reinvested in new time deposits, making the additional investment in new time deposits very marginal. The AO had not considered cogent evidence on record, such as bank statements for FY 2016-17 & 2017-18 and a statement detailing maturity proceeds of old time deposits invested in new time deposits during FY 2017-18, which were submitted during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal was of the view that the case was not properly adjudicated and that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that for Section 68 additions, once the assessee establishes taking money via account payee cheques from income tax assessees with disclosed PANs, the initial burden is discharged. The AO's duty is then to verify with the lenders' assessing officers. The Tribunal also noted that Ground No. 2 was not pressed, and Grounds 3 & 4 were for interest and ad-hoc disallowances, which were approved by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue's non-objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty orders passed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The primary reasoning was that the notices issued by the department were not proper, did not contain the date of the notice, and were not sent to the assessee's registered email address. The notices were only available on the department's website portal. The Tribunal noted that the non-compliance was due to the assessee's lack of knowledge about the penalty proceedings, as the notices were not properly communicated. This was considered a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal relied on a similar decision by the ITAT, Chandigarh, which had quashed a penalty order on the ground that notices were issued only on the portal. The penalty order was found to be contrary to facts and law. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the remand report and the assessee's submissions. While some disallowances were confirmed, the Tribunal restricted the additions for unsecured loans, depreciation, and administrative/kharajat expenses, finding them to be partly justified. The addition for kharajat expenses was restricted to 5%.
The Tribunal heard both parties and noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. With no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was treated as withdrawn. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a consequential order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances explained and the Supreme Court's judgment on condonation of delay. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide substantive corroborative evidence to link the assessee with the transactions in the hawala operator's bank accounts. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that notices were sent to an email address belonging to the assessee's old tax consultant, who did not inform the assessee about the proceedings and hearings. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of notices upon the assessee. It was also noted that the assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B, and the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present her case before the lower authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to submit all required documents in support of the income earned during the year. The issue of penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, were implicitly left undecided as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO made a best judgment assessment without considering documents submitted by the assessee and without giving proper opportunity. The CIT(A) approved the AO's order without valid material. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication.