Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in accepting the assessee's explanation for cash deposits, as they were corroborated by subsequent sale deeds. The Tribunal also found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision regarding cash transactions and fixed deposits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent compliance in other years and the nature of their business involving cash transactions. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence and the admission of additional documents, restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case was based on incomplete information and a 'change of opinion' because the Assessing Officer failed to consider the disclosures made in the assessee's HUF assessment, where the same bank account was previously examined and accepted. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the absence of a specific donation clause and the nature of donee trusts. The Tribunal found that the objects of the assessee trust did permit donations to similar organizations for furthering religious education.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the case to the AO, directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present her case and submit evidence. The AO was instructed to admit all submitted evidence.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the cash was from business sales and reflected in his books, he failed to pinpoint the specific parties from whom the collection was made. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance was not willful and that the assessments were completed under section 144, not 143(3), distinguishing it from relied-upon case laws. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or demonstrate reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's compliance was not satisfactory and the assessment was completed under section 144 (best judgment assessment), unlike cases where assessments were completed under section 143(3). Therefore, the penalty was justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons were based on suspicion rather than belief. It also noted that the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was incorrect for agricultural land and that only the difference between consideration and stamp duty value, not the entire value, could be considered as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal as deemed withdrawn, as the Vivad se Vishwas scheme requires specific procedural compliances for an appeal to be considered withdrawn. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's observation of 'illegal currency' was legally incorrect, as cash deposited may be unexplained but not necessarily illegal. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had received a Form No. 4, indicating a settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as deemed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The assessee must explain the delay, and if condoned, the appeals will be decided on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the NFAC were ex-parte. Considering the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the file to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to explain the bank transactions. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the file to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions.
The Tribunal found that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to procedural grounds. However, the Tribunal decided that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without proper adjudication. The assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case, and the alleged turnover figure was not substantiated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The assessee must explain the delay, and if condoned, the appeals will be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance was not willful and that the assessments were completed under section 144, not 143(3), distinguishing it from relied-upon case laws. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or demonstrate reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Observing that the NFAC order was ex-parte and the issues were not adjudicated, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order.
The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case, admitting additional evidence in the form of affidavits. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case due to technical issues with email communication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal found that the AO's findings were primarily based on investigation reports without providing the assessee an effective opportunity to confront or rebut the adverse evidence. Therefore, the assessment was set aside for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the investment was made through a joint bank account with the assessee's brother and that it was unclear if any addition was made in the brother's hands. Therefore, the matter requires verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to refer the matter to the DVO as required by Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented cash sales which were already accounted for in the assessee's books and profits. Therefore, adding the same amount again as income under Section 68 was erroneous. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in not considering that the cash sales were already part of the total turnover and income computation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to issue a clarification or corrigendum regarding the quantum of relief granted in the earlier order, despite the assessee's application under Section 154. The CIT(A) is directed to issue the necessary clarification.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested, as there was no objection from the Departmental Representative. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed a de novo assessment. The CIT(A) is to consider the outcome of the Section 10(46) application and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed a de novo assessment. The CIT(A) is to consider the outcome of the Section 10(46) application and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed a de novo assessment. The CIT(A) is to consider the outcome of the Section 10(46) application and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding the additions made in the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause (health grounds). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit to be reasonable and acceptable. The delay in depositing the sale proceeds and the demonetization period were not sufficient reasons to reject the assessee's claim, especially as the Revenue did not provide contradictory material.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The assessee orally requested to withdraw the appeal during the hearing, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for Rs. 4,75,844/- as past savings from her business. However, the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration due to lack of reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal found a lack of clarity on whether the land was agricultural and its exact location relative to municipal limits, with contradictory versions from both sides. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal found a lack of clarity on whether the land was agricultural and its exact location relative to municipal limits, with contradictory versions from both sides. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove it as business turnover. The issue of rental income was also restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity to explain their health condition before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues in dispute to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.