Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 1 of 2
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting valid reasons and adopting a liberal approach. The tribunal found that despite the assessee opting out of email service in Form-35 and providing a physical address, no physical notices were served by the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for re-adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made in gross violation of the principles of natural justice due to the denial of cross-examination. Furthermore, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable as its pre-conditions were not met, as the assessee was not found in possession of unexplained money or valuables.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid for failing to provide the statutory minimum of 7 days for the assessee to furnish a reply, violating principles of natural justice. Citing a High Court precedent, the Tribunal quashed the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) and the Section 148 notice, remanding the matter back to the A.O. to provide a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that a return filed during the pendency of assessment proceedings, even if belated, is a valid return. The AO wrongly withdrew the notice under Section 143(2) and dispensing with this mandatory notice rendered the assessment order void for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had specifically opted out of email communication for notices in "Form 35" and provided a physical address. Despite this, the CIT(A) sent all notices electronically via ITBA and failed to serve physical copies, thereby denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction by dispensing with the statutory obligation to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
Despite the assessee's repeated non-compliance at all levels, the Tribunal took a lenient view and granted a final opportunity. The case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all requisite details and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly in the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the available records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without obtaining the mandatory approval from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act, rendering the assessment invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
For AY 2015-16 (ITA 336), the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice dated 18.04.2022 were without jurisdiction and barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(b) of the unamended Act, relying on Supreme Court precedents. For AY 2018-19 (ITA 337 and 338), the Tribunal remitted both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard, with a caution to cooperate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the ‘Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and filed the necessary settlement form, and the Ld. DR raised no objection.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, asserting that a mere clerical error in claiming exemption should not deny a rightful entitlement. It remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to entertain the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and decide it in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A after the AO failed to furnish a remand report despite multiple reminders, concluding the AO had no objections. The CIT(A) found the assessee's books of account to be audited with no defects, rendering Section 69 inapplicable, and deleted the additions, including the brokerage. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's non-response justified admitting evidence and that the additions were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the additions. It found that the assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the sources of the Rs. 14,93,000/- cash deposits, the Rs. 85,512/- rental income, and the Rs. 4,20,000/- bank credits, thereby confirming the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,21,500/- as unexplained cash deposits due to lack of cogent documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal directed that the tax liability on this addition be determined by applying the tax rate of 30% as per the pre-amended Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal determined that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay of 366 days did not constitute 'reasonable and sufficient cause' as required by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the plea for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal was condoned, as the assessee had provided sufficient cause in the form of medical reasons, supported by a medical certificate, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Regarding the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to present its case on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to furnish/update its E-mail address and appear before the CIT(A) on all scheduled hearing dates. The Tribunal noted that no order would be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the other grounds raised by the assessee, including the one concerning the addition under Section 69A, were allowed for statistical purposes, as they did not require adjudication at that stage. The operative direction was to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the 284-day delay, finding sufficient cause. Citing the Bombay High Court, it held that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the cash deposit of Rs.3,43,500/- was only marginally above the CBDT's non-enquiry limit for demonetisation deposits and was related to the assessee's cash-based business receipts. Lacking any material from the Revenue to prove the amount represented undisclosed income, the Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal condoned the 59-day delay in filing the appeal, adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file all necessary evidence and cooperate fully without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has submitted additional evidence, including confirmation letters from buyers and ledger account copies, which were not examined by the lower authorities. Considering the new evidence and the request for de novo adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication, granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found the AO's estimation basis of Rs. 60,000/- per acre for nursery income to be without foundation, especially when the assessee had furnished an agricultural income certificate showing Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-estimate the agricultural income at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the 20 acres, leading to a total of Rs. 20,00,000/-, and restricted the addition under section 69A to the balance amount of Rs. 2,26,289/-.
The Tribunal held that the basic purpose of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2)(f) and Section 13(3)(cc) of the Act is to prevent a Trust from transferring its property to its Trustees for a consideration less than adequate. In this case, the Tribunal noted that the Trustee made payments totaling Rs. 1,50,50,000/- in various tranches from 2013 until the date of registration of the sale deed in 2016. Furthermore, the balance consideration of Rs. 17,00,000/- was also paid by the Trustee on 29.03.2018. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the property was ultimately sold to the Trustee at the market price of Rs. 1,67,50,000/-. Consequently, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2)(f) of the Act as alleged by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the exemption under Section 11 to the assessee Trust and compute its income accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The additional ground of appeal was rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, including the delay in filing without seeking condonation, and the failure to submit necessary documents and appeal fees. Therefore, the appeal was deemed liable for dismissal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The assessee did not press the grounds raised on merits. The Tribunal admitted and decided the additional ground concerning the applicability of the amended Section 115BBE. The Tribunal noted conflicting views from the Hon'ble High Courts of Kerala and Madras on the applicability of the post-amended Section 115BBE (w.e.f. 01.04.2017) to A.Y. 2017-18. Following the principle that in case of conflicting views of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view favorable to the assessee should be adopted, the Tribunal respectfully followed the Madras High Court's decision in S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to determine the tax liability on the addition made under Section 69A by applying the tax rate of 30% as per the pre-amended Section 115BBE. The additional ground of appeal was allowed, and the grounds on merits were dismissed as not pressed. Other grounds were rendered academic and dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. It agreed with the lower authorities that the society's transactions with non-members and staff, and the selective distribution of surplus, violated the principle of mutuality, making it ineligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned a 2-day delay in filing the appeal and, noting the assessee's plea for a final opportunity, remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order within 90 days, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) may pass an order on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal afresh on its merits, particularly considering the protective nature of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It agreed with the lower authorities that the society's transactions with non-members and staff, and the selective distribution of surplus, violated the principle of mutuality.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked when the money is recorded in the assessee's books of accounts and the sources are not disputed. It was also noted that the assessee satisfied the identity and genuineness of deposits from its members. Following judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal found no prohibition in accepting SBNs during the specified period.
The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it failed to specifically indicate whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' by not striking off the inapplicable limb. Relying on prior jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal decisions, the ITAT concluded that an ambiguous show-cause notice cannot form the basis for valid penalty proceedings. Therefore, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided on the issues raised in the cross objections. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the total income at 30% on the unaccounted sales of Rs.21,60,86,928. Therefore, the assessee's ground for complete deletion was dismissed. On Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that this ground was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed it as infructuous. Regarding Ground No. 3, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s view to disallow 10% of Rs.20,49,768 towards alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the assessee's plea for complete deletion. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal were argumentative and did not require adjudication. Consequently, all appeals filed by the revenue and all cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The operative direction was that the appeals and cross objections are dismissed.
The Tribunal decided on the issues raised in the cross objections. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the total income at 30% on the unaccounted sales of Rs.21,60,86,928. Therefore, the assessee's ground for complete deletion was dismissed. On Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that this ground was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed it as infructuous. Regarding Ground No. 3, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s view to disallow 10% of Rs.20,49,768 towards alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the assessee's plea for complete deletion. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal were argumentative and did not require adjudication. Consequently, all appeals filed by the revenue and all cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The operative direction was that the appeals and cross objections are dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned a 23-day delay in filing the appeal for AY 2015-16. Regarding the validity of the assessment for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the DIN was properly communicated and that since the assessee did not file a valid return within the time stipulated in the section 153A notice, the AO was justified in treating no return as filed, thus not requiring a section 143(2) notice, citing Rakesh Agarwal. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide valid documentary evidence or explain the sources for the jewellery purchase, even after considering the limits in CBDT Circular 1916. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 27,29,450/- was upheld. The claim for telescoping the addition from AY 2015-16 against the AY 2020-21 addition was rejected due to the absence of a proven nexus by the assessee. Consequently, both grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided on the issues raised in the cross objections. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the total income at 30% on the unaccounted sales of Rs.21,60,86,928. Therefore, the assessee's ground for complete deletion was dismissed. On Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that this ground was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed it as infructuous. Regarding Ground No. 3, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s view to disallow 10% of Rs.20,49,768 towards alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the assessee's plea for complete deletion. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal were argumentative and did not require adjudication. Consequently, all appeals filed by the revenue and all cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The operative direction was that the appeals and cross objections are dismissed.
The Tribunal decided on the issues raised in the cross objections. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the total income at 30% on the unaccounted sales of Rs.21,60,86,928. Therefore, the assessee's ground for complete deletion was dismissed. On Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that this ground was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed it as infructuous. Regarding Ground No. 3, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s view to disallow 10% of Rs.20,49,768 towards alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the assessee's plea for complete deletion. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal were argumentative and did not require adjudication. Consequently, all appeals filed by the revenue and all cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The operative direction was that the appeals and cross objections are dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned a 23-day delay in filing the appeal for AY 2015-16. Regarding the validity of the assessment for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the DIN was properly communicated and that since the assessee did not file a valid return within the time stipulated in the section 153A notice, the AO was justified in treating no return as filed, thus not requiring a section 143(2) notice, citing Rakesh Agarwal. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide valid documentary evidence or explain the sources for the jewellery purchase, even after considering the limits in CBDT Circular 1916. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 27,29,450/- was upheld. The claim for telescoping the addition from AY 2015-16 against the AY 2020-21 addition was rejected due to the absence of a proven nexus by the assessee. Consequently, both grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, finding the AO's assessment prima facie arbitrary. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's adjournment petition violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that the main appeal for the assessment year was still pending before the CIT(A), and the assessee wished to withdraw the current appeal seeking an absolute stay. As the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, required approval from a higher authority as per Section 151. Since approval was obtained from an authority not specified in the law, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening a concluded assessment beyond four years is invalid if it's for re-appreciating existing material and not due to the assessee's failure to disclose facts. The AO lacked valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and the statement of Shri Alwyn Stephen. The Tribunal held that the transaction lacked corroboration and directed the AO to record statements of involved parties and conduct further inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 was invalid and barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed time limit under the unamended provisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's affidavit and medical certificate, which explained the delay was due to illness. Finding it a fit case, the Tribunal condoned the 128-day delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the 90-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's explanation that he was a non-resident, notices went to spam, and he became aware only upon receiving physical penalty notices. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte, finding it not maintainable as the assessee neither filed an application for condonation of delay nor provided any reasonable cause for the 276-day delay. Consequently, the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal condoned the 518-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. Noting that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders, and considering the new evidence submitted by the assessee at the Tribunal stage, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly in future proceedings.