Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been cooperative during the appellate proceedings with the CIT(A), who had issued multiple notices. Despite the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned as it was not deliberate or intentional, and preferring substantial justice over technicalities. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without examining the merits, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee's claim of not receiving notices due to outdated contact details was not rebutted by the revenue. The Tribunal noted that crucial evidence, such as lender confirmations and bank statements, was not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, to serve the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable and effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition made under section 68, leaving all issues open for fresh consideration. A nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for the delay and non-compliance due to negligence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the reopening and the issue of notice u/s 148. The Tribunal, citing previous case law, stated that the power to set aside an order does not absolve the CIT(A) from adjudicating legal issues, particularly those challenging jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that once the declaration under DTDRS, 2016 was accepted and Form 3 was issued, the matter stood settled, and the penalty proceedings were deemed abated. The non-issuance of Forms 5 or 6 by the PCIT was not the fault of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the books of account were not rejected and the sales were already recorded and offered to tax, adding the entire sale consideration would lead to double taxation. However, considering the lack of complete verifiable evidence for the genuineness of the transactions, the Tribunal deemed it fit to estimate profit.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was done after 4 years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, amounting to a change of opinion. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard and failed to consider the assessee's elaborate written submissions before cancelling the registration. The Tribunal also noted that no specific show-cause notice was issued.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the association should be viewed holistically and not in isolation. Following a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order for 12A registration. For the 80G approval, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after deciding the 12A application.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperation but also noted the ex-parte dismissal violated principles of natural justice. It held that another opportunity for hearing was necessary to ensure fair adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the association should be viewed holistically and not in isolation. Following a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order for 12A registration. For the 80G approval, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after deciding the 12A application.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was against a rectification order passed under section 154. According to the mandate of section 154, only mistakes apparent from the record can be rectified. The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court judgments, stated that mistakes apparent must be obvious and patent, not requiring extensive reasoning or examination of facts/law. The rectification sought, except for the double addition, did not qualify as mistakes apparent from the record. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the existence of the cash balance but found a considerable time gap between the firm's dissolution and the cash deposit, with insufficient documentary evidence to bridge this gap. The Tribunal acknowledged a bonafide nexus between the deposit and the repayment of an overdraft liability.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively plead their case before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A)'s order might not have been per the mandate of section 250. Recognizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to failure to provide relevant documents. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO and that the case might not have been adjudicated properly. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the lower authority.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of transfer expenses on land and building, finding insufficient evidence. However, a portion of the cost of improvement for the building was allowed, considering the sale price and partial evidence provided. The additional ground regarding the applicability of concessional tax rates under Section 112 for capital gains under Section 50 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead its case effectively before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of Section 250 of the Act. It was also noted that the assessee did not submit all documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file any written submissions or appear for the hearing, and no material was submitted in support of the grounds of appeal. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), prepared by a technically qualified officer following the procedure under section 55A of the Income-tax Act, carries a presumption of correctness. The Tribunal found that the assessee's registered valuer's report, while from an approved valuer, lacked cogent supporting sale data or contemporaneous evidence to justify the extraordinary variance in valuation. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that looking at comparable sale instances is the best methodology to estimate the FMV of immovable property. The assessee failed to provide specific sale instances or documentary proof to substantiate the claimed rate of Rs.1,000 per square meter. The DVO's valuation of Rs.33 per square meter was based on an examination of seven contemporaneous sale instances from the same area, duly adjusted for relevant factors. The Tribunal concluded that the DVO's methodology was transparent, evidence-based, and supported by verifiable data, making it the most reasonable and fair estimate. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of substantiating the claimed FMV. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 318-day delay in filing the appeal, citing a lack of communication from the tax consultant as a genuine reason. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-cooperation during appellate proceedings. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the appellant's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that while the disallowance of cash payments for cleaner's salary and repair expenses was justified, the disallowance for diesel expenses and related on-road expenses should be deleted. A liberal interpretation of Section 40A(3A) was warranted for transporters to accommodate practical business exigencies, especially for essential expenses like diesel incurred on a day-to-day basis.
The Tribunal held that income declared under the PMGKY scheme cannot be taxed again. It also found that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on unsecured loans after considering additional evidence, as no prejudice was caused to the revenue.