Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 2 of 2
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, citing that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and was caused by a technical issue with the email communication and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment addition in the assessee's own case had already been restored back to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A would not survive.
The Tribunal condoned the 167-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the previous consultant's oversight. It ruled that the ex-parte CIT(A) order, having not addressed the merits and violating natural justice, should be set aside, and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a proper hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. It was held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard, constituting a violation of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) did not discuss the case on merits, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel prayed for the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) file. Considering the facts and the undertaking of the assessee's counsel to be more vigilant and comply with notices, the matter was restored.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as notices were not served. The order was not passed on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings had not yet been decided. Therefore, the penalty appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate it based on the outcome of the quantum proceedings. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the interest income received from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its own Division Bench's decision in the case of Shri Avadh Nagarik Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. PCIT-1, Rajkot (ITA No.126/RJT/2023). In that precedent, the Tribunal had analyzed the assessee's submissions and the eligibility criteria for deductions under Chapter VI-A, particularly Section 80P. The Tribunal noted that the assessee in the cited case had provided details of its activities, including providing credit facilities to members and earning interest from investments made from surplus funds, and had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest received from cooperative banks/societies. The Tribunal concluded that such income was indeed deductible. Therefore, following this precedent, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disclosed income of Rs. 2.25 Cr pertained to the assessee's business and was correctly taxed at normal rates by the Assessing Officer. The AO's view was plausible and reasonable after due inquiry, thus the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order passed under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure of issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, all other issues on merits were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries, and the Commissioner's view was not the only possible interpretation of the facts.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is expected to examine all documents during the assessment proceedings and cannot revisit the same set of documents for a 'third inning' without new material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) observed the notice issued by the AO was not a proper show cause notice as mandated under faceless assessment provisions.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act, alleging that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, as the unaccounted sales should have been taxed under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO had taken a legally plausible view by considering the excess stock as business income and taxing it at the normal rate. The Tribunal also noted that the stock pertained to the assessee's business and had been examined by the AO during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not afforded the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard and had not followed the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The assessee presented a certificate of settlement under the 'VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2024', indicating that the issue was finally settled. The Ld. AR requested permission to withdraw the appeal, and the Ld. DR had no objection. The tribunal acknowledged the settlement certificate and granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and non-speaking, and that the issue was not decided as per section 250(6) of the Act. It was held that principles of natural justice require sufficient opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeal, stating it was not intentional or deliberate. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merit. The Tribunal further decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the sources of the cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- in his HDFC bank account as cash withdrawals from the bank and opening cash balance. The AO did not dispute the sufficiency of these sources or discover any other utilization of the withdrawals. While the AO rejected the explanation due to the assessee's non-declaration of agricultural income in earlier years and the lack of cash deposits in preceding or succeeding periods, the Tribunal noted that entries deposited in the bank account should not be treated as profit. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition at 20% of the cash deposit in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on various ITAT decisions where additions were deleted or restricted when the assessee had sufficient cash in hand or withdrawals from the bank to explain the deposits. The issue of whether the opening cash balance was genuine due to the absence of previous year's cash books was considered, along with the possibility of cash withdrawals being used for personal purposes. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had deposited Rs.11,51,000 in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) on 12.11.2016. The assessee had furnished a cash flow statement showing cash withdrawal of Rs.19,25,000 in FY 2015-16 and other documents like the balance sheet, P&L account, capital account, cashbook, and bank statements. The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation that the funds originated partly from the sale of property in the previous year, partly from 'cash in hand' from business, and partly from past savings. However, the Tribunal found these documents to be 'self-serving' and concluded that the entire addition could not be deleted. The Tribunal also observed that the Assessing Officer had not identified specific defects in the purported evidences nor held them to be bogus. Therefore, finding some merit in the assessee's contention and acknowledging that the case merited some relief, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition at the rate of 10% of Rs.11,50,000 (Rs.1,15,000) to take care of inconsistencies in the submitted documents. This addition was to be taxed under the normal rate of income-tax, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal found that both the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders and that the CIT(A)'s order was violative of natural justice principles as it dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of non-compliance without addressing the merits. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that he is an agriculturist and that banking facilities were unavailable in his village. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify this specific statement of the assessee and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law, thus remanding the case for factual verification.
The tribunal held that the process of registration under Section 12AB is not an assessment of income but a preliminary stage to examine the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. The CIT(E) should have objectively evaluated the explanation and sought further clarifications rather than summarily rejecting the application.
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument that the AO (CPC) is a machine and its adjustments should be examined by the jurisdictional AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the jurisdictional AO to examine the factual position regarding the assessee's status as a mutual organization and the nature of member contributions.
The Tribunal noted that the EPF portal was non-functional for an extended period, preventing timely deposit of contributions. The EPF Department itself recognized these difficulties by declaring a special grace period. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The excess stock found during the survey, admitted as business income by the assessee, was correctly treated as business income.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed sales. It ruled that once sales are accepted by the Assessing Officer, related expenses for production and purchase must also be allowed. The tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion that all expenses were already debited in the regular books was an assumption unsupported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The excess stock found during the survey, admitted as business income by the assessee, was correctly treated as business income.
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 assessment of income. The CIT(E) should have objectively evaluated the explanation and sought further clarification rather than summarily rejecting the application.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a company that was struck off and thus ceased to exist as a legal entity was void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground raised by the assessee, as it was a purely legal issue with all facts on record. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.