Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case had previously dealt with a similar issue. In that case, it was observed that if the entity does not exist, subsequent proceedings and penalties do not survive. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the existence of the assessee at the relevant time.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount of undisclosed money cannot be treated as income, and only the estimated profit embedded in the transactions should be taxed. Following the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. President Industries, the Tribunal directed the AO to disallow 30% of the addition, amounting to Rs. 1,06,950/-, considering it as profit.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued multiple notices of hearing to the assessee, which were not complied with, leading to the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the lower authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was further directed to comply with the notices and submit all required documents as and when called for by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice and the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 69,30,700/- were not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the case was remanded. The appeals for both AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued multiple notices of hearing to the assessee, which were not complied with, leading to the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the lower authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was further directed to comply with the notices and submit all required documents as and when called for by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice and the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 69,30,700/- were not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the case was remanded. The appeals for both AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/- per assessment year. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/- per assessment year. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked at the stage of assessment and not at the stage of registration. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of the trust's objects being restricted to a particular community, without considering the stage of assessment, was erroneous. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant had provided evidence of income being applied for the benefit of all communities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/- per assessment year. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons explained by the assessee, including the death of the original assessee and communication gaps among legal heirs residing in different cities, to be convincing and indicative of mitigating circumstances. Regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed by the AO under Section 147. The Tribunal relied on the principle that proceedings initiated against a dead person are a nullity. It cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M. Hemanathan (384 ITR 177) and a coordinate bench decision in Pari Anil Gandhi, which held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person after their death are void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued to the deceased assessee after her death, and despite information of death being provided, the AO proceeded with the assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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. This was considered a violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the write-back of provision for bad and doubtful debts is taxable as income. It also rejected the assessee's contention that a revisionary order under Section 263 was invalid due to non-confrontation regarding Explanation 2.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. The AO is directed to conduct a thorough investigation and verification, including examining the gift deed, income/balance sheets, and verifying if the HUF is assessed to income tax. The Tribunal noted that gifts from family members, directly or through an HUF, should generally not attract tax under Section 56(2) as an HUF is considered a natural group of individuals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all transactions, including property sales and business income, and maintained audited books of account. The AO had made inquiries and the assessee had submitted details. The Pr.CIT's view that no investigation was carried out was found to be without merit. The Tribunal also noted a subsequent assessment order with a smaller addition.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 is not applicable as no new investment was made in the year under consideration. The amount in question was accrued interest on existing FDRs, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support this.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the rebate under section 87A, even though the income includes STCG taxable under section 111A. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions do not explicitly bar this rebate and that the legislative intent, as clarified by prospective amendments, supports this interpretation.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee if no substantive addition has been made in the hands of the true owner. Since the revenue failed to make any addition in the hands of M/s. Akarsh Gold, the protective addition in the assessee's case was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on 'on-money' payment should be taxed, but not under Section 69 and 115BBE as a penalty, but as income taxed at normal rates. The profit element embedded in the 'on-money' should be taxed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide appropriate clarification regarding the objects of the trust and submitted illegible documents. However, considering principles of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.