Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting new evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to comment, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an NRI, had provided sufficient evidence including bank statements, fund flow statements, and details of remittances to prove the source of funds in his NRE account. The Tribunal concluded that the trail of funds was established and the additions made by the AO were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and applied his mind during the assessment proceedings, even if the assessment order was not elaborately written. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was carried out without obtaining prior approval from the higher authority as required under Section 151 of the Act. The notice issued under Section 148 was therefore invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act is applicable only to trusts created on or after 01.04.1962. Since the assessee-trust was established before this date, the bar of Section 13(1)(b) does not apply. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to examine the trust deed and grant registration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer conducted sufficient inquiry, including issuing notices and corresponding with the jurisdictional AO, but found no incriminating material. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and verified the sundry creditors with documentary evidence, including confirmations and ledger accounts. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's action was based on a change of opinion and was therefore not sustainable under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment and a coordinate bench decision. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 84,04,625/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 106 days, finding sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication on merits, observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, indicating a violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard, and their case was not discussed on merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought adjournments to file details and documents, but the CIT(A) did not allow further time. Citing the settled law that principles of natural justice require the affected party to be granted sufficient opportunity to contest their case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessing officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who would also be at liberty to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition made under Section 69 was unsustainable as the investment was made from sale consideration received from compulsory acquisition of land, similar to the assessee's brother's case where the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had explained sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that notices were not delivered on time and the order of the CIT(A) was also not received by the assessee promptly. The assessee became aware of the order only upon receiving a demand notice from the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal found mitigating circumstances to exercise its discretion in favor of the assessee. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the valuation report of the Registered Valuer dated 30.11.2020 was not available before the Assessing Officer when the assessment order was passed on 04.12.2019. The Tribunal was of the view that an opportunity should be given to the Assessing Officer to examine this valuation report and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The assessee was also permitted to submit other relevant documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be convincing and constituting sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A) did not discuss the case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the AO and CIT(A), violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order, constituting a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and could not plead her case successfully before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest his stand forthwith. The Tribunal imposed a minimum cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days of receipt of the order. Failure to deposit the cost would result in the vacation of the order and dismissal of the assessee's appeal. The AO was also directed to examine the deposit of the cost. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.
The ITAT condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeal before itself, noting the tax consultant's mistake. It also condoned the 232-day delay in filing before the CIT(A), finding mitigating circumstances. Recognizing that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking on merits, and to uphold natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits, while imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the alleged difference of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- was indeed due to the inclusion of excise duty in the turnover reported to the sales-tax (VAT) department, which was not part of the turnover as per the audited financial statements. The assessee had provided a reconciliation of sales and turnover figures, which clearly explained this difference.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to a communication error. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to a communication error. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit all relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 2657 days in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach as per the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the assessee's change of address and non-receipt of notices. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had declared income of Rs. 4,16,790/- (sale price of jewellery) from a TV contest win, where she was eligible to purchase jewellery worth Rs. 14,00,030/- for Rs. 14/-. The AO did not accept the assessee's contention and added Rs. 14,00,030/- as winning amount and Rs. 4,16,746/- as short-term capital gain, leading to a total income of Rs. 18,16,776/-. The CIT(A) had doubted whether the jewellery sold by the assessee was the same jewellery received from M/s. Eros Jewellers. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to prove that the jewellery was the same and that the CIT(A) did not adequately inquire into this aspect. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to inquire whether the jewellery sold was the same as the jewellery won in the contest. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in sustaining a 20% disallowance of the expenditure. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection for failing to provide complete documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the case before the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the case and examine the documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee, attributing the delay to a tax consultant's mistake, to be convincing and a sufficient cause. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, thus vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Considering that similar cases related to M/s. National Shroff had already been remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and the assessee in this case was a beneficiary, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was an ex-parte and non-speaking order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the Learned CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the Learned CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material, which constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee had sought an adjournment before the appellate authority to file details and documents, but this was not allowed. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessing officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also directed to contest its stand forthwith and was at liberty to submit further evidence. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Since the assessee's quantum appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also remitted back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and taken a plausible view. The Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263 as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee, attributing the delay to a tax consultant's mistake, to be convincing and a sufficient cause. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, thus vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not been given a sufficient opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Considering that similar cases related to M/s. National Shroff had already been remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and the assessee in this case was a beneficiary, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) did not discuss the case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The tribunal is hearing the appeals filed by the assessee. The excerpt does not contain the tribunal's decision or reasoning.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's submission that she is a senior citizen and was unaware of the CIT(A)'s order due to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found mitigating circumstances and exercised its discretion in favour of the assessee. Regarding the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the CBDT, through Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017 and a Press Release dated 18.11.2016, provided for a blanket exemption of Rs. 2,50,000/- per person for small depositors like artisans, daily workers, and housewives, especially during the demonetization period. The Tribunal observed that the amount deposited by the assessee falls within this exempted slab. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals. For ITA No. 416/Rjt/2025, the Tribunal found the reasons for the 566-day delay convincing and considered the mistake of the accountant/advocate as a sufficient cause, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for such errors. Similarly, for ITA No. 415/Rjt/2025, the Tribunal found the reasons for the 79-day delay convincing and condoned it. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was made under Section 144 and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard, 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 (AO) for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard, which constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be afforded a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal is hearing the appeals filed by the assessee. The excerpt does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals. For ITA No. 416/Rjt/2025, the Tribunal found the reasons for the 566-day delay convincing and considered the mistake of the accountant/advocate as a sufficient cause, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for such errors. Similarly, for ITA No. 415/Rjt/2025, the Tribunal found the reasons for the 79-day delay convincing and condoned it. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was made under Section 144 and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard, 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 (AO) for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disclosed the excess stock as business income and offered it for taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the books of accounts were audited and no specific defects were pointed out, thus rejecting the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3).
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were pending. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the penalty appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to contest the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were pending. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the penalty appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to contest the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal by modifying the addition based on net profit estimation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principle of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits based on the available material. 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 Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to contest their stand forthwith. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to their non-compliance attitude. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it did not delve into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking, indicating a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been afforded a sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case effectively before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) had not discussed the case on its merits based on the available material. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to present their case forthwith and was at liberty to adduce relevant evidence. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, due to their non-compliance attitude. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for rebate under Section 87A for AY 2024-25, even though the total income includes short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A. The reasoning followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana (supra). The Tribunal noted that the amended first proviso to Section 87A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2023, applies to resident individuals whose total income does not exceed Rs. 7,00,000 and who are assessed under Section 115BAC(1A). The statute does not distinguish between normal income and income chargeable at special rates, nor does it contain an express exclusion for tax arising under Section 111A. The absence of a corresponding exclusion in Section 111A or Section 87A, unlike the express bar in Section 112A(6) for long-term capital gains, is legally significant. The Tribunal found that the overriding clause in Section 115BAC(1A) governs the computation of tax but does not affect eligibility for rebates unless specifically restricted, and Section 87A is an independent provision. Reliance on the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2025 was deemed misplaced as it pertains to prospective amendments and cannot override the plain language of the statute. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the rebate of Rs. 23,653 and delete the demand raised. The issue of whether the CPC's system-based denial was correct was implicitly decided in favour of the assessee.