Loading ITAT cases…
113 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to the persistent defects and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was treated as defective and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of who should issue Section 148 notices was pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to await the jurisdictional High Court's decision and then adjudicate on merits.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's claim of ignorance of tax provisions and the fact that their accounts are audited by the State Government, decided to grant one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was levied for non-compliance.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the validity of the notice in light of High Court judgments and future Supreme Court directions.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on mere suspicion and conjecture, lacking any supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a contradiction in the AO's stance that the SBNs had no value after December 30, 2016, yet treated them as valuable for the addition.
The Tribunal agreed that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as they fell below the prescribed monetary limit. The cross objections filed by the assessee were allowed to the extent observed.
The Tribunal held that the mention of Section 154 was a clerical error, and the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee to rectify it and adjudicated the appeal on merits. The CIT(A)'s approach was deemed hyper-technical.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the absence of any application for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal agreed that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as they fell below the prescribed monetary limit. The cross objections filed by the assessee were allowed to the extent observed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on mere suspicion and conjecture, lacking any supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a contradiction in the AO's stance that the SBNs had no value after December 30, 2016, yet treated them as valuable for the addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on mere suspicion and conjecture, lacking any supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a contradiction in the AO's stance that the SBNs had no value after December 30, 2016, yet treated them as valuable for the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment order, as the assessment was not a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.