The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The dispute involved penalties on bank interest earned by a mutual entity prior to a change in law. The Tribunal held that a bona fide claim based on settled law cannot be treated as concealment, warranting deletion of penalties.
The case examined whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders could stand without merit-based adjudication. The Tribunal held that failure to decide all grounds violates natural justice and ordered a fresh assessment.
The issue concerned denial of depreciation for want of year-wise details and WDV computation. The Tribunal held that the claim requires fresh examination and remanded the matter for de novo assessment.
The issue was dismissal of an appeal for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that a bona fide misunderstanding of limitation can justify condonation and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT emphasised that dismissal of appeals without dealing with substantive grounds is legally untenable. NFAC was directed to rehear the reassessment appeals after granting reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) must pass a speaking order addressing all grounds raised. Failure to do so vitiates the appellate order, regardless of assessee’s non-compliance.
ITAT Dehradun held that dismissing an appeal without addressing all grounds contravenes natural justice and remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
