Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessment orders were deemed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that loose papers seized during a search, without corroborative evidence, do not have evidentiary value to prove transactions. Additions made solely on the basis of such 'dumb documents' are not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the capital reduction, duly approved by the Board, shareholders, and the High Court, resulted in the extinguishment of investment and amounted to a transfer. Therefore, the addition to book profits under Section 115JB was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessees and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the cash deposits were from opening balance, gift from son, agricultural income, and withdrawal from a joint bank account. While some portions were accepted, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof for the entire amount. Therefore, a 10% addition of the sustained amount was considered appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory and not procedural. The omission on the part of the AO to issue such a notice is not a curable procedural irregularity. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, emphasizing that the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.
The Tribunal condoned both the 216-day delay in filing the appeal before it and the 872-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the tax consultant's demise and non-jurisdictional notices. It further held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was not compliant with Section 250(6) of the Act and violated natural justice. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, with directions to afford the assessee a proper hearing on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), ruling that the delay was not deliberate and substantial justice should take precedence over technical considerations. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), finding it to be in violation of Section 250(6) and principles of natural justice for not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee a fair hearing and opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that while adhering to legal provisions is important, substantial justice should be preferred. Citing precedents, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay, considering the mistake of the advocate should not penalize the assessee. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and that the cause of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The reasons provided for the delay, including medical issues and procedural transitions, were found to be convincing and constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also found that the assessee did not receive adequate opportunity of being heard at the CIT(A) level due to non-receipt of notices on the correct email address.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing that the issue arose due to a previous tax consultant's mistake and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without deciding the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 346 days, considering the assessee's circumstances and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It was noted that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked a proper adjudication of the grounds raised.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete documentation to prove the source of funds, both to the AO and the PCIT. To ensure justice and adherence to natural justice principles, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the grounds related to the denial of natural justice, specifically the lack of a proper video conference hearing by the CIT(A), were significant. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's argument that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the underlying excise order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were circular in nature and therefore, Section 68 was inapplicable. The addition was limited to the difference between sales and purchases, along with a small commission income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the case before the AO, and principles of natural justice were violated. The addition was made based on presumptions and borrowed satisfaction without independent inquiry or opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted 89% of the share capital as genuine based on similar evidence and that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's belated return was not discarded by the AO, a notice under section 143(2) was mandatory before passing an assessment order that varied from the returned income. The omission to issue this notice is not curable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in pursuing the case and failure to provide necessary documents. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by submitting plethora of documents like PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and balance sheets for the loan creditors. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiry to disprove these documents. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,24,30,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 508 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged that while time limits are important, substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Citing the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others, the Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of his advocate/representative. The Tribunal also referred to ITAT, Kolkata's decision in M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT, which condoned delay due to wrong advice from tax professionals, and the Gujarat High Court's view in Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. favoring a liberal approach to ensure substantive rights are not defeated by technicalities. On merits, the assessee's counsel made a limited prayer to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) as the assessee could not represent his case properly before the CIT(A) and was not given a fair opportunity. The Tribunal, considering the facts, circumstances, and the assessee's undertaking to be more vigilant, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to be more vigilant and comply promptly with notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard due to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence and arguments.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was unaware of the e-filing system, especially in 2016 when it was new. Despite the procedural lapse, justice should not be denied. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee exhibited irresponsible and non-cooperative conduct by failing to comply with statutory notices at all levels. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's failure to represent their case diligently.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The CIT(A)'s verification of land records from a public domain was not considered additional evidence requiring the AO's rebuttal opportunity. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s power to conduct further inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee exhibited irresponsible and non-cooperative conduct by failing to comply with statutory notices at all levels. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's failure to represent their case diligently.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under Section 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, and the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's order based on available materials, which was insufficient for natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was unaware of the e-filing system, especially in 2016 when it was new. Despite the procedural lapse, justice should not be denied. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii), (iv), and (d). It was also noted that the same exemption was allowed in a previous year. The Tribunal observed that the assessee committed an error in filing the return by claiming the exemption under the wrong sub-clause.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not effectively present their case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)'s order was considered a non-speaking order and a violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's orders based on insufficient material, violating principles of natural justice which mandate adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case and evidence. For statistical purposes, the appeals were treated as allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an order without a remand report from the Assessing Officer, despite calling for one, violates the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that provisions for NPAs are for disclosure and presentation in the balance sheet, not claimed as an expense, and thus no addition should be made. Higher provisions voluntarily made by the bank, exceeding RBI minimums, are permissible and do not constitute taxable income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sold brass scrap to brass parts manufacturers and not to other traders. It was also observed that while Form 27C declarations were received and submitted belatedly, there was no evidence on record regarding the timely filing of Form 27EQ. Relying on judicial precedents, a minor delay in filing declarations is considered a procedural lapse and does not negate the seller's non-liability to collect TCS if the goods are for manufacturing purposes.
The Tribunal held that the quantum assessment proceedings in ITA No. 255/Rjt/2025 should be set aside and remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee was permitted to furnish additional evidences as and when called for by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal reasoned that in the interest of justice and fair play, and considering the assessee's inability to avail the VSVS-2020 Scheme due to financial difficulties and their willingness to submit more documents and evidence, a fresh opportunity was warranted. Consequently, since the quantum proceedings were remitted, the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) would not survive. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings, if any, in accordance with law, in the fresh quantum proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the penalties do not have a leg to stand when the quantum proceedings are restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. The reasoning was that the order of the CIT(A) was served on an incorrect email ID, not the one registered with the Income Tax Department. Furthermore, the tax consultant appointed by the assessee lacked adequate knowledge. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, and in the interest of justice, the appeal was admitted for hearing on merit. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. The assessee's non-compliance with notices was not deliberate but due to unavoidable circumstances, including notices not being served. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not passed an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, dismissing the appeal solely on non-compliance, which violated the express provisions requiring appellate orders to state points, decisions, and reasons. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and furnish all details and explanations. The grounds of appeal were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to submit further evidence and noted that justice requires providing an opportunity to present such evidence. The Tribunal also considered that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing a fair opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice principles.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be neither intentional nor deliberate, and admitted the appeal for hearing on merit. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that mistakes by the lawyer or tax consultant can be considered a valid reason for condoning delay, especially when it advances substantial justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 386 days. Subsequently, it was noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the quantum assessment proceedings in ITA No. 255/Rjt/2025 should be set aside and remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee was permitted to furnish additional evidences as and when called for by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal reasoned that in the interest of justice and fair play, and considering the assessee's inability to avail the VSVS-2020 Scheme due to financial difficulties and their willingness to submit more documents and evidence, a fresh opportunity was warranted. Consequently, since the quantum proceedings were remitted, the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) would not survive. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings, if any, in accordance with law, in the fresh quantum proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the penalties do not have a leg to stand when the quantum proceedings are restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on medical grounds. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits, following a previous decision regarding the eligibility of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without discussing the merits of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's financial difficulties and desire to contest the appeal on merit. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the quantum proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalties imposed were also set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officer to initiate fresh penalties.