Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the AO himself acknowledged the bank account belonged to M/s Eon Sales Enterprises Private Limited, despite its connection to the assessee's PAN. Since crucial issues like the correct ownership of the account, proof of the bank's error, and the company's financial records were not adequately examined, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to verify if the company's balance sheet and cash book reflect the deposit and if the company had sufficient cash.
The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.
The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' inability to produce necessary evidence before lower authorities. In the interest of justice and to provide adequate opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues in both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment applications from both parties, noting the lack of proper representation and a general policy against last-minute requests. While the challenge to reopening was rejected due to lack of evidence, the issue of the share application money addition was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the directors/responsible persons of the share applicant companies for examination, with the liberty for the AO to draw adverse inferences upon failure.
The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by concluding there was no incriminating material, despite a search being conducted and incriminating material (PKRB-05) being found. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the 1846-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons plausible based on judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for readjudication, instructing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case, considering the CIT(A) had previously confirmed orders due to non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the 1846-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons plausible based on judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for readjudication, instructing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case, considering the CIT(A) had previously confirmed orders due to non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the 1846-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons plausible based on judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for readjudication, instructing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case, considering the CIT(A) had previously confirmed orders due to non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the 1846-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons plausible based on judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for readjudication, instructing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case, considering the CIT(A) had previously confirmed orders due to non-compliance.
The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.