Loading ITAT cases…
60 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural default and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11, provided other conditions are met. Citing High Court precedents, it was noted that if the audit report is available before processing, the requirement is satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the AO's remand report without cogent reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, supported by withdrawals from earlier periods, was genuine.
The Tribunal condoned a 166-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's medical reasons. Recognizing the assessee's non-compliance at earlier stages, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice and considering the substantial demand, provided a final opportunity for the assessee to present her case and documents to the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144 and subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A) in the name of a deceased assessee, after his death, is a nullity. Citing Section 159 of the Income Tax Act and a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the orders fundamentally defective. The matter was remanded to the AO to frame a fresh assessment after impleading the legal heirs of the deceased assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without following the procedure prescribed by the new regime under the Finance Act, 2021, and was therefore invalid and barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Exemption)'s orders to be non-speaking, cryptic, mechanical, and a violation of natural justice, as they lacked specific findings, material analysis, or clarification on missing information. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to pass fresh, reasoned orders after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and submit further documents.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Exemption)'s orders to be non-speaking, cryptic, mechanical, and a violation of natural justice, as they lacked specific findings, material analysis, or clarification on missing information. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to pass fresh, reasoned orders after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and submit further documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not submitted details before the AO but did so before the appellate authority. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to examine the submissions made by the assessee and allow deductions in accordance with law. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) had directed that deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) should be granted for income earned from providing credit facilities to members, but not to associate/nominal members. Further, deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) would be available on interest from deposits with cooperative societies/banks not governed by the RBI Banking Regulation Act, but not from scheduled commercial banks. The AO was directed to allow these deductions looking into the respective amounts from the appellant's books of accounts. The issue of deduction from scheduled commercial banks was expressly left undecided by the CIT(A) in its order, but the Tribunal's decision to allow for statistical purposes implies a remand for verification.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as it was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the PCIT's order was quashed.