The Tribunal examined the levy of late fees under Section 234E for TDS defaults prior to the Finance Act 2015 amendment. It held that Section 234E, as a charging provision, was enforceable even before procedural updates in Section 200A. The ruling emphasizes that machinery provisions cannot negate substantive liabilities.
The Tribunal held that donations to an institution whose approval was withdrawn retrospectively cannot qualify for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii). Reopening was upheld, and bona fide belief offered no protection.
The Tribunal observed that the cooperative society’s members relied entirely on their CA, who failed to represent them in ex-parte assessments. In the interest of justice, the quantum additions were set aside and restored for fresh adjudication. Penalties were also deleted pending reassessment.
The ITAT quashed assessments under Section 153A due to ex-parte orders, mechanical Section 153D approvals, and failure to give the assessee an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in tax proceedings.
ITAT required the Assessing Officer to verify whether the correct tax credit was allowed. The assessee must present supporting evidence, ensuring accurate refunds under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found the Final Assessment Order invalid as it was issued before the 30-day objection period under Section 144C expired. This violated the assessee’s procedural rights. All transfer pricing adjustments and tax demands linked to the order were deleted, partly allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to challenge both the reopening notice u/s 148 and the addition of ₹2.25 Cr. NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal was found inappropriate in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned a 27-day delay after accepting the assessee’s affidavit explaining non-intentional default and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the first appeal ex parte without addressing merits. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with full opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal accepted that the delay arose from an inadvertent error by the assessee’s prior tax consultant during e-filing. It ruled that such a bona fide mistake should not deprive the taxpayer of statutory appellate remedies. All issues were remanded for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal recognized the assessee’s health issues and financial weakness as valid grounds for condoning delay, following the Supreme Court’s principle favouring substantial justice. It held that repeated notices for the same enquiry cannot multiply the default. Consequently, the penalty was scaled down to a single default, offering relief of ₹40,000.
