Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the non-compliance was due to unavoidable circumstances and the potential violation of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were general and lacked corroborative evidence, thus not constituting a "sufficient cause" for condonation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the appellant's non-appearance on multiple hearing dates, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings, both before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, despite opportunities. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that it has the inherent power to dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution when the appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal, noting that it was not intentional or deliberate. However, due to non-compliance before the AO and CIT(A), a cost of Rs. 2000/- per appeal was imposed. The case was restored to the AO for passing a fresh assessment order, with directions for the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices and failure to file a return in response to a notice u/s 148. The assessee argued that the non-compliance was due to unavoidable circumstances (illness) and that an adequate opportunity was not granted. The Tribunal, considering the ex-parte order by CIT(A) and the assessee's plea, decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and the fact that the assessee had applied under DTVSV-24 and paid the tax liability. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the DTVSV-2024 application was not settled.
The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the assessee's request. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to both parties to seek restoration if the Vivad se Visvas Scheme application is not settled.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO had not pointed out specific defects in the assessee's books of account before rejecting them and that the estimation of gross profit was based on assumptions without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. It was dismissed as 'withdrawn' with liberty to both parties to seek restoration if the Vivad se Visvas application is not settled. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals, noting that the application was approved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the inclusion of the word "religion" in the trust's objects without considering the overall charitable nature and actual activities. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had not examined the details of expenditures, including potential religious expenditures, and that the objects of the trust should be viewed as a whole.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and was violative of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision thereon, and the reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present the case.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliant and evasive attitude towards notices from tax authorities. However, in the interest of justice and at the request of the assessee's counsel, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting one more opportunity.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals, noting that the application was approved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that a further opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was sought to substantiate the source of capital introduced in the books of accounts. Consequently, the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made under Section 68, Section 14A, or the applicability of Section 115BBe. The operative direction is to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and noted that the application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 has been approved. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire cash deposit was not justified, especially considering the demonetization period and the fact that the assessee's books were not rejected. It directed that only 10% of the cash deposit be taxed as profit.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly investigated the transactions and had made additions without sufficient justification. The Tribunal reduced the addition, considering the profit element embedded in accommodation entries.
The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding the addition for cash payment of income tax (Issue 1 & 4), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted the cash received from the proprietary business but did not accept the cash balance of Rs. 9,19,797/- as no independent evidence was filed to prove its existence in the cash book. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on this aspect, dismissing the assessee's appeal ground and Revenue's ground 1. Concerning the addition for time deposits (Issue 2 & 3), the Tribunal found that the assessee provided a banker's certificate and details of fixed deposits, including maturity dates, before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) concluded that the investments were out of the maturity of earlier fixed deposits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and affirmed it, dismissing Revenue's ground 2. On the applicability of Section 115BBE (Issue 5), the Tribunal held that the enhanced rate prescribed under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18, citing several precedents. Therefore, the assessee's ground of appeal on this issue was allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 148A of the Act applies to search cases, making the AO's notice valid. Regarding additions on account of on-money receipts, the Tribunal directed the AO to add 45% of the on-money received in cash as net income.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 148A of the Act applies to search cases, making the AO's notice valid. Regarding additions on account of on-money receipts, the Tribunal directed the AO to add 45% of the on-money received in cash as net income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, and without providing a rejoinder to the remand report, thereby violating express provisions of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to contest the case on merit.
The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding the addition for cash payment of income tax (Issue 1 & 4), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted the cash received from the proprietary business but did not accept the cash balance of Rs. 9,19,797/- as no independent evidence was filed to prove its existence in the cash book. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on this aspect, dismissing the assessee's appeal ground and Revenue's ground 1. Concerning the addition for time deposits (Issue 2 & 3), the Tribunal found that the assessee provided a banker's certificate and details of fixed deposits, including maturity dates, before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) concluded that the investments were out of the maturity of earlier fixed deposits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and affirmed it, dismissing Revenue's ground 2. On the applicability of Section 115BBE (Issue 5), the Tribunal held that the enhanced rate prescribed under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18, citing several precedents. Therefore, the assessee's ground of appeal on this issue was allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 148A of the Act applies to search cases, making the AO's notice valid. Regarding additions on account of on-money receipts, the Tribunal directed the AO to add 45% of the on-money received in cash as net income.
The ITAT found that the proviso to Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which exempts search cases initiated after April 1, 2021, from the inquiry and opportunity requirements, was applicable. Therefore, the AO was deemed to have the necessary information to reopen the assessment without following the standard Section 148A procedure.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 148A of the Income-tax Act were not applicable in search cases initiated after April 1, 2021, as per the proviso to Section 148A. Therefore, the AO was deemed to have information suggesting income escaped assessment, and the procedure under Section 148A was not mandatory.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding unsecured loans received by the assessee. It noted that this evidence was not considered by the lower authorities and that the power to admit additional evidence exists for substantial cause to ensure justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal. It acknowledged that the assessee's revised financial statement, showing total sales of Rs. 2.45 crores, was accepted for the first time for consideration. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that entire cash deposits cannot always be treated as income, and peak balance might be a better criterion in certain cases.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding deemed rental income, stating that no such income could be estimated as development permission was only received later. For sundry creditors, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if liabilities were discharged in subsequent periods before allowing relief.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting that substantial rights of the assessee were involved and that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders. The matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh assessment, with a direction to grant a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also directed to be more vigilant in future compliance.
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(E) had not examined the annual accounts of the preceding three years as required by Rule 11AA(2)(g) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This rule requires submission of annual accounts to provide a clear picture of the trust's expenditure, especially concerning religious activities.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal but condoned it due to the peculiar circumstances, including notices being sent to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal also noted that both the AO and the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to contest the appeal before the CIT(A). Both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) requested the restoration of the appeal to the NFAC for reasons including the inability to file evidence and make submissions. The AR undertook to be more vigilant in future compliance.