Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not decide the issue on merit but rather passed the order to keep the issue alive, pending further appeals. The Tribunal observed that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 was allowed by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not decide the issue on merit but rather passed the order to keep the issue alive, pending further appeals. The Tribunal observed that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 was allowed by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that multiple hearing opportunities were provided to the assessee and their AR, but neither appeared. Given the consistent non-appearance and non-cooperation of the appellant, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal based on available materials. The Tribunal affirmed its inherent power to dismiss an appeal that is not prosecuted by the appellant.
The Tribunal held that certain additions related to alleged on-money receipts from flat sales and unexplained expenditures for project materials were not fully substantiated. Some amounts were deleted due to lack of evidence or duplication, while others were sustained.
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 decided that the 'sauda chitthi' executed by an authorized representative did not necessarily bind the assessee for on-money receipts, especially without the purchaser being examined. It also addressed issues of duplicate entries and expenditures pertaining to different assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on the 'sauda chitthi' was not sustainable as the assessee was not a party to it and had not received any on-money. Regarding the expense notings, the Tribunal found them to be vague, lacking year specificity, and without supporting evidence, thus not proving unexplained expenditure for the relevant assessment year.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as a fresh 80G(5) registration has been granted and is in force. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) order was passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case and without considering a rejoinder, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO.