Loading ITAT cases…
134 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of the cash balance carried forward from previous years. The belated filing of returns and the timing of cash disclosures were considered indicative of a malafide intention.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits. A penalty order arising from the quantum assessment was also set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte due to improper service of notices. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits. A penalty order arising from the quantum assessment was also set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to send notices via speed post and pass a speaking and reasoned order on merits.
The Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities were not on merits due to the assessee's non-participation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that while there was a delay in filing Form 10B, it was filed before the intimation order. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive relief should not be denied due to procedural delays that are condonable, especially when the assessee has made multiple attempts to rectify the issue.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not adjudicated on merits due to the assessee's limited submissions during the Covid period and the lack of proper adjudication in the impugned order. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the charge under section 68 read with section 115BBE was sustained by the ITAT, and the reduction in addition was a measure to balance equity, not an estimation. Therefore, the penalty was justified.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost and cooperating fully in the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5000/- in each appeal and cooperating fully.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was largely non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). However, acknowledging the complexity and the assessee's belated attempts to investigate, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the re-casted financial statements without proper opportunity for the assessee to rectify unsigned documents. Considering the estimation basis adopted by the assessee and the previous year's treatment, the Tribunal directed to sustain the addition to the extent of estimated profit at 12.65% of the bank credits.
The Tribunal found that factual aspects regarding the utilization of two PANs, the surrender of one, and the verification of bank deposits needed proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have first adjudicated the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment, particularly the non-issuance of a notice u/s 143(2), before setting aside the matter. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under section 263 was set aside and remanded, the consequential assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 also becomes infructuous and does not survive.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including an affidavit from the accountant and a subsequent reversal entry, and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is to examine the accounting trail and reconciliation of the impugned credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the income and claimed the deduction based on a bona fide interpretation of the law. The mere disallowance of a claim in quantum proceedings does not automatically attract penalty, especially when the income was not concealed and the claim was made openly.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication after verifying details and providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to such an invalid notice is unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a speaking order and in not condoning the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory prior approval requirement under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that both the CIT(A) and the AO passed orders without properly considering the assessee's submissions and replies. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mistake pointed out by the assessee was apparent from the record and fell within the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits pertained to the proprietorship concern after the firm's dissolution and were already assessed in the hands of the proprietor.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for technical glitches. The AO was directed to allow the carry forward and set off of the business loss.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 153D before passing the assessment orders. The assessment orders were found to be unsustainable due to the absence of these approvals.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory prior approval requirement under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was granted insufficient opportunities by the CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration after providing the assessee with one more effective opportunity.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her husband's involvement in corruption and her lack of awareness of the proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the proceedings, attributing it to her husband's involvement in illegal activities. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunities to the assessee and there was a factual inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her husband's involvement in corruption and her lack of awareness of the proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of agricultural income and other sources like maturity of mutual funds and fixed deposits, which explained the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her husband's involvement in corruption and her lack of awareness of the proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business (kirana store, mobile recharge, etc.) primarily deals in cash. While the books of account were not audited, the cash deposit was not entirely exceptional given past and subsequent patterns. Therefore, the addition was reduced.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the source of funds, including loan statements, cash in hand, and bank deposits. The Tribunal found contradictions in the AO's report and concluded that the addition made under Section 69 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the AO did not reject the books of account and the turnover exceeded Rs. 60 lakhs (making Section 44AD inapplicable for presumptive taxation at 8%), the actual net profit offered by the assessee should be considered. Therefore, no further addition was required.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to ensure active participation.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her husband's involvement in corruption and her lack of awareness of the proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her husband's involvement in corruption and her lack of awareness of the proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry by issuing notices and considering the assessee's detailed replies and documents. The PCIT's revision was based on general information about political parties and lacked specific adverse material linking the assessee. Therefore, the revision order was unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to her lack of awareness of the assessment proceedings due to her husband's involvement in illegal activities. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. Since the loans were received and repaid through banking channels with interest and TDS, and the repayment was not disputed, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her husband's involvement in corruption and her subsequent unawareness of the proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It further held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice, and therefore set aside the order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is consequential to the quantum proceedings. Since the quantum proceedings have been restored and have not attained finality, the penalty order should be set aside and the matter restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceedings are finalized.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a hearing opportunity to the assessee, who was also instructed to ensure participation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.