The Appellate Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the ...

Appellate Tribunal overturns CIT(A) decision due to missed notices. Assessee gets chance to present case with evidence. Update contact info within 60 days.

Case Laws Income Tax

July 1, 2024

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to notices not being served on the assessee during the appellate proceedings because of address changes. The CIT(A) is directed to rehear the appeal, allowing the assessee to present their case with explanations and evidence. The CIT(A) may seek a remand report from the AO regarding the evidence/explanations provided by the assessee. The assessee must provide their correct address, email, and phone details to the AO and CIT(A) within 60 days. Failure to do so will result in notices being served at the address on record. The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the ...

Appellate Tribunal overturns CIT(A) decision due to missed notices. Assessee gets chance to present case with evidence. Update contact info within 60 days.

Case Laws Income Tax

July 1, 2024

You may also like:

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the rejection of the application for registration u/s 80G(5) due to non-receipt of order by the assessee-trust. The Tribunal noted that...

Gross violation of CBEC instructions and the precedential value of CESTAT decisions. The Revenue filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority without specifying...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of a re-assessment notice issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the designated Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as...

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal u/s 249(4)(b) due to non-payment of advance tax. The assessee did not respond to the notice u/s 142(1) to clarify tax payment....

The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of a penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 274 regarding unexplained differences in trading sales and purchase costs. The...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) due to the Accountant's Covid-19...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for a defective notice related to TP adjustments. The AO determined arm's length OP/OC at...

The ITAT Delhi considered the validity of a re-assessment order where no notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee. The notice u/s 148 was issued through the ITBA portal...

Penalty levied u/s. 271B - Defective notice - vague and unspecific notice - failure to furnish the audit report u/s 44AB before the due date - Notice proposing penalty...

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan - Very fairly, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that, specifically that chance of personal hearing, though was not asked by the...

Validity of reassessment proceedings - non-issue of the statutory notice u/s 143(2) - The Appellate Tribunal found that the AO had not issued the statutory notice under...

Service of garnishee notice u/s 87 - The petitioner has not disputed the quantum of service tax dues quantified in the garnishee notices. Petitioner has only highlighted...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals, which exceeded 400 days, due to unexplained cash deposits and protective additions...

Levy of penalty u/s 271B - default u/s 44AB - failure to get accounts get audited - Contradictory stand of the appellant when he contended that due to seizure of books...

Quick Updates: