Loading ITAT cases…
86 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the trust was established prior to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus Section 13(1)(b) is not applicable. The CIT(E) erred in not considering this fact and in rejecting the application without proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel and decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's representative raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that while the trust had religious objects, no expenditure was incurred on religious activities in the preceding three years. Citing case laws, the Tribunal held that as long as expenditure on religious activities does not exceed 5% of the total income, the trust remains eligible for 80G benefits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 55 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. It was noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the issue raised by the assessee as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 40A(3) apply to each payment made to a single person on a single day and not to the aggregate of payments for different bills. Since all individual payments were below Rs. 20,000, the addition was not tenable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal, finding that the reasons provided by the assessee (medical treatment of parents) constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits as per the provisions of section 250(6) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was ex-parte and that the assessee had failed to provide necessary documentary evidence regarding the genuineness of activities, their consonance with objects, and compliance with other laws. However, considering the assessee's plea of inadvertent delay due to lack of awareness and technical expertise, and the assurance of their AR to assist in future proceedings, the Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed late by 225 days. The assessee attributed the delay to unawareness of online proceedings and sought condonation. The Tribunal, considering the facts and the lack of objection from the revenue, condoned the delay. However, the application for registration was found to be non-maintainable as filed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings and that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the COVID-19 period and the assessee's reasonable belief that the revision was wrongly initiated. The Tribunal further held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisional powers beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay and non-compliance was due to technical unfamiliarity and lack of availability of documents during the proceedings. The revenue did not object to the assessee's prayer for another opportunity. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to cooperate with the Department and did not furnish necessary evidence during the assessment proceedings. Despite due notices, the assessee failed to appear or respond. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were bad in law due to non-application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 346 days, imposing a cost of Rs. 2000 on the assessee, noting that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, considering it in the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's unawareness of online proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not aware of online proceedings and lived in a village with no internet facility, leading to negligence in pursuing the case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit relevant details and documents.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and accepted the assessee's contentions based on available evidence. The revision was deemed a mere change of opinion without new material.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice and passing an assessment order in the name of a deceased person is a fundamental jurisdictional defect, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. The Tribunal followed precedents that state proceedings initiated against a dead person are a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the higher authorities under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was neither signed nor did it demonstrate independent satisfaction. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including ledger accounts from FY 1996-97 to 2006-07 and audited accounts for the year ended March 31, 1997, establishing that the loan was taken in the financial year 1996-97 and not in the year under consideration. The assessing officer had not refuted or discredited these evidences. Thus, the addition made by the assessing officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the method adopted by the assessee for computing the net profit of the eligible business was correct, aligning with accounting standards and previous years' accepted practices. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the deduction as claimed.
The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, noting the assessee's failure to comply with the notices and lack of reasonable cause. The assessee's counsel argued that the non-compliance was due to the consultant's mistake, and that the assessee, being a farmer and illiterate, was dependent on the consultant. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee made subsequent compliance and directed the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for one default, deleting penalties for the other two.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted inquiries and accepted a possible view based on available evidence. The revision was based on a change of opinion without new material.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice and passing an assessment order in the name of a deceased person is a fundamental jurisdictional defect, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. The Tribunal followed precedents that state proceedings initiated against a dead person are a nullity.
The Tribunal noted that each payment was below Rs. 20,000/-, which is within the permissible limit under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was done beyond the period of three years, as the escaped income was Rs. 26,04,000/-, which is less than the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold stipulated in Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for reassessment after three years. Furthermore, the approval for reopening after three years was taken from the Principal CIT, whereas it should have been from the Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General as per Section 151(ii).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed their return under section 44AD of the Act, which does not mandate maintaining books of accounts. As no books of accounts were maintained, the requirement for an audit report under section 44AB did not arise, and thus, the penalty under section 271B was not leviable. Additionally, since the AO estimated the income, imposing a penalty was not justified.
The Ld. CIT-DR did not object to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted a plethora of documents and evidence before the lower authorities to support his claim regarding the source of cash deposits. The Assessing Officer had not refuted or discredited these evidences and had merely brushed them aside without providing reasons for their rejection. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had sustained 30% of the addition, which was Rs. 9,87,961. However, considering the extensive documentary evidence provided by the assessee, including agricultural land holding documents (Forms 7/12 and 8-A), income from his mother, cash withdrawals from a Kishan Credit Account, and agricultural income of Rs. 4,19,040, the Tribunal found the sustained addition to be on the higher side. The Tribunal reduced the addition to 8% of Rs. 32,93,205, amounting to Rs. 2,63,456. The AO was directed to sustain this reduced addition. The Tribunal clarified that this sustained addition should be taxed at the normal rate of income tax, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merits as per section 250(6) of the Act. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is granted adequate and fair opportunity to present all relevant evidence.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding the notice u/s 148 to be invalid. It ruled that the notice, issued on 01.04.2021, did not comply with the new procedural requirements of the Finance Act, 2021 (specifically Section 148A(b) and 151) as clarified by the Supreme Court in *Ashish Agarwal*. Furthermore, the notice was time-barred under Section 149(1)(a) as the alleged income escapement (Rs. 29,09,670/-) was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold for reopening beyond the three-year limitation period for AY 2015-16, which had expired.
The Tribunal noted that the error in Form 10 was a genuine typographical mistake, evidenced by the original return of income and Form 10B, both filed on the same day. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that allow for correction of such bona fide errors, especially when the substantive compliance is met.
The Tribunal held that the object of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) is to determine the correct income and taxes. It found no bar to a taxpayer making a claim by letter without filing a revised return in a section 143(3) assessment. While the Assessing Officer may not be entitled to grant a deduction based solely on a letter requesting an amendment, appellate authorities are entitled to consider such claims. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to correct the erroneous double addition of Rs. 13,32,054/- to the computation of income, as it led to an incorrect determination of taxable income, and to determine the taxable income afresh in accordance with law. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on the ruling in Goetze India Ltd., distinguishing it as applicable to fresh claims in assessment proceedings, not appellate proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed late by 437 days and accepted the assessee's explanation for the delay due to a discontinued firm and unreceipt of online notices from the NFAC. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Principal Commissioner's order directing a fresh assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal held that the excess stock and cash were related to the assessee's business and adequately explained, thus Section 69/A/B/C and 115BBE of the Act were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence during the appeal proceedings without following the prescribed procedure under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee had not submitted these documents before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.