Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) summarily rejected the application without adequately examining the genuineness of the activities or affording proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing a reasoned order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was invalid as no prior show cause notice for that specific penalty was issued to the assessee. Deeming this a violation of natural justice, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be justified and therefore deleted it.
Observing that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee failed to appear before it, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the entire matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was accepted, and Form No. 2 was issued, rendering the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the explicit liberty granted to the assessee to seek its restoration if the final settlement under the VSVS scheme is not concluded.
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and submit documents. This re-adjudication is conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within sixty days.
The Tribunal found that the ancestral property was jointly owned and the renovation investment was made by all co-owners, not solely by the assessee. It further ruled that the AO lacked the authority to estimate the valuation of the property and failed to refer the matter to the DVO. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deleted for both assessment years.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to the ex-parte assessment and the requirement for factual verification. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days; failure to do so will result in the CIT(A) order being confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the ancestral property was jointly owned and the renovation investment was made by all co-owners, not solely by the assessee. It further ruled that the AO lacked the authority to estimate the valuation of the property and failed to refer the matter to the DVO. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deleted for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the sum could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 for AY 2012-13, as the funds were received in FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) and reflected as "Share Application Money Pending Allotment" prior to the relevant assessment year. Since section 68 applies only to sums credited in the books during the *relevant previous year* and no fresh inflow occurred in FY 2011-12, the addition was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal found that the Village Mukhia's certificate clearly proved the assessee's ownership of agricultural land and the generation of agricultural income. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were directed to be deleted for both assessment years.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence (PAN, ITR, bank statements, audited accounts) to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. It held that non-compliance by third parties to summons could not be held against the assessee when the department failed to conduct independent inquiries. Following judicial precedents and its own previous decision for the assessee on similar facts for a subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 68 and directed recomputation of income, allowing the set-off of losses.
The Tribunal found that the Village Mukhia's certificate clearly proved the assessee's ownership of agricultural land and the generation of agricultural income. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were directed to be deleted for both assessment years.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities but the assessee failed to comply. However, in the interest of justice and based on the AR's undertaking to cooperate, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and furnish all necessary documents.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application due to lack of details for the authorized representative. However, acknowledging the assessee's claim regarding incorrect email service, it partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the case to the CIT(A) for readjudication with directions to send notices to the correct email address and ensure a proper hearing.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A), restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present documents. This was conditioned on the assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within sixty days and cooperating with the AO.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the issue of sundry creditors to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce all relevant documents, and is directed to cooperate with the AO in the readjudication proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- due to the assessee's lack of proper submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand this specific unaddressed issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all submissions. All connected appeals for other assessment years were also allowed for statistical purposes, applying the same principle.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- due to the assessee's lack of proper submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand this specific unaddressed issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all submissions. All connected appeals for other assessment years were also allowed for statistical purposes, applying the same principle.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's imprisonment constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing appeals before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and restored the issues for all assessment years to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delays in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities like limitation. Consequently, the issues in both appeals were restored to the file of the JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited, held that the seller (assessee) is not responsible for verifying Form 27C once it is duly filled and signed by the purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Assessing Officer's orders under section 206C for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, finding no substantial question of law. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited, held that the seller (assessee) is not responsible for verifying Form 27C once it is duly filled and signed by the purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Assessing Officer's orders under section 206C for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, finding no substantial question of law. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited, held that the seller (assessee) is not responsible for verifying Form 27C once it is duly filled and signed by the purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Assessing Officer's orders under section 206C for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, finding no substantial question of law. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- due to the assessee's lack of proper submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand this specific unaddressed issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all submissions. All connected appeals for other assessment years were also allowed for statistical purposes, applying the same principle.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited, held that the seller (assessee) is not responsible for verifying Form 27C once it is duly filled and signed by the purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Assessing Officer's orders under section 206C for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, finding no substantial question of law. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's imprisonment constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing appeals before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and restored the issues for all assessment years to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice and fair play, remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to afford sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also stipulated that an ex-parte order could be passed by the CIT(A) if the assessee fails to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal condoned the 161-day delay, acknowledging the communication deficiency. It restored the assessment issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, conditional upon the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to comply with this condition would lead to the CIT(A)'s order being confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delays in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities like limitation. Consequently, the issues in both appeals were restored to the file of the JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the bank account in question was indeed clearly reflected in the assessee's return of income and audited accounts. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 based on a wrong assumption of facts was invalid, and the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was an ex-parte dismissal without considering the merits. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the issues, directing the CIT(A) to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also required to comply with notices.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.