Loading ITAT cases…
86 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(Exemption) rejecting the assessee's application was on the grounds that the appellant failed to reply to a notice which was not served on the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(E) to adjudicate the matter after giving the appellant a due opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate documents, apply the Peak Credit Theory, and recognize business receipts for taxing only net profit. The Tribunal observed that the deposit was related to the assessee's textile business and directed the AO to calculate Net-Profit at 20% on the deposit.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance and failure to provide evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act by not providing reasons and denied a proper hearing. The Tribunal considered the assessee deserved another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the delay was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, specifically the non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order due to issues with email communication. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte without a detailed adjudication on the merits. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's argument that the assessment order was passed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is a jurisdictional requirement. Citing the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Silver Line and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Panorama Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that an assessment made without issuing notice under section 143(2) is null and void. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the lower authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the 694-day delay in filing the appeal for registration under section 12AB, finding that the delay was not deliberate or due to negligence and was caused by the assessee not being aware of the rejection order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The appeal regarding the 80G approval was disposed of on similar terms.
The Tribunal condoned the 694-day delay in filing the appeal for registration under section 12AB, finding that the delay was not deliberate or due to negligence and was caused by the assessee not being aware of the rejection order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The appeal regarding the 80G approval was disposed of on similar terms.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with several notices issued by the CIT(A) because his CA allegedly did not inform him. The CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, leaving the assessee unheard. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present his case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside pending fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not effectively present its case before the CIT(E) due to insufficient opportunity for hearing. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice issued under Section 148A was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal, though not deliberate, was condoned subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(E) due to non-service of notices on the correct email ID. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were not entirely unexplained and could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 in their entirety. However, considering potential revenue leakage, a portion of the cash deposit was estimated as income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised return, filed before the issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) and accepted by the AO without any additions, constituted a bona fide disclosure. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal opined that since the revised return was accepted and there was no addition to income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The request of the assessee for withdrawal was accepted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had issued only two notices for hearing and that the assessee was not effectively able to present its case. Citing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh order after granting an adequate opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, including unawareness of online proceedings and incorrect email communication. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue did not oppose the prayer for condonation. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not file details before the Ld. CIT(A) due to unawareness of online proceedings. Considering that the AO had passed an order under section 143(3) but the assessee could not prove the agricultural income, the Tribunal set aside both orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate in hearings and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The AO was given liberty to pass an appropriate order if the assessee failed to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, including unawareness of online proceedings and incorrect email communication. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue did not oppose the prayer for condonation. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not file details before the Ld. CIT(A) due to unawareness of online proceedings. Considering that the AO had passed an order under section 143(3) but the assessee could not prove the agricultural income, the Tribunal set aside both orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate in hearings and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The AO was given liberty to pass an appropriate order if the assessee failed to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality is applicable to the assessee, and therefore, its income is not taxable. Consequently, disallowance of depreciation is not required. The PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire purchase amount solely based on unserved notices or non-traceability of suppliers is unjustified when payments were made through banking channels and purchases were recorded in books, especially when sales are not doubted. The AO did not reject the books of account. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be estimated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the claim for deduction under Section 54B was correctly disallowed, the addition for unexplained credit to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- should be deleted, and the remaining addition of Rs.2,79,250/- is confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the ground regarding the validity of reopening under section 147 was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no infirmity, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Rajesh Javeri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., which states that at the stage of reopening, the AO needs a prima facie belief of escapement of income, not conclusive proof. However, regarding the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition under section 69A after the AO had made it under section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee an opportunity to explain why the addition should be made under a different section or whether the conditions for invoking section 69A were satisfied. Citing section 251(2) of the Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against enhancement, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The ground on penalty proceedings was not explicitly decided on merits but was implicitly linked to the main addition. The Tribunal clarified that only the addition under section 69A was remitted, not the reopening itself.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued to a dead person after the assessee's death was intimated to the department, making the notice bad in law and the assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in Rasid Lala Vs. ITO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not submit details of credits/sales receipts to the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidence and adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The assessee was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 421 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and adopting a justice-oriented approach, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer (AO). Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the AO should adjudicate the matter uninfluenced by his earlier order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee's counsel argued that the order under Section 263, which led to the assessment order under Section 143(3), had been quashed by the ITAT. Therefore, the subsequent assessment order does not sustain.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sought adjournments to file details and documents because they were not available. However, the AO did not grant sufficient time and passed an ex-parte assessment order without adjudicating on merits. Citing the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to plead their case before the AO. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to be more vigilant in the future and submit all documents and evidence promptly. For the penalty appeal, since the quantum assessment was restored, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings in accordance with law. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that various notices were issued by the CIT(A) but there was no compliance from the assessee because the tax consultant/CA had not moved an application under Rule 46A. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the online proceedings. The CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal considering the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal deemed it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO for proper adjudication. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The issue of considering the loan confirmation signed by the wife of the deceased lender was implicitly to be considered during the fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not submit details of credits/sales receipts to the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidence and adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The assessee was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO, stating that the Excel sheet entries alone, without corroborative evidence of actual cash payments, were insufficient to sustain the additions. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessee. Regarding the deletion of additions for on-money payments and unaccounted expenses, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions after considering the assessee's submissions, including the lack of corroborative evidence and the fact that the addition was made merely based on an entry in an excel sheet without supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted that at the stage of re-opening, the AO needs a prima facie belief of escapement of income, not conclusive proof. It respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Rajesh Javeri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500 SC) regarding the 'reason to believe' expression. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's AR had not argued a specific ground before the Tribunal concerning the commencement of business or income-generating activity, rendering that issue academic. Therefore, the appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of excess stock was justified due to the assessee's voluntary disclosure and signed inventory, despite claims of space constraints. However, the addition for unaccounted investment in cheque discounting business was deleted as it was already included in the disclosed income in the return.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to both parties to seek restoration if the VSVS application is not settled.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to both parties to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not settled.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly accounted for in the assessee's books of account and arose from sales and debtor receipts. Since the assessee provided audited financials, offered entire turnover to tax, and supported the increase in turnover with reasonable explanations and debtor confirmations, the addition under Section 68 was deemed unwarranted.
The CIT(A) provided partial relief by reducing the addition based on the DVO's later valuation. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider crucial legal arguments raised by the assessee regarding the DVO's reference and the use of a registered valuer's report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.