TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Bangalore Bench grants appeals for fresh assessment under Section 10(38)</h1> The ITAT Bangalore Bench allowed the appeals for statistical purposes in a case involving denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act and the ... Exemption u/s 10(38) denied - Denial of an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, the issues are squarely covered by the decision of Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of Ranjit Kumar Bothra Vs. ITO. [2020 (4) TMI 50 - ITAT BANGALORE] as held that since the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the AO by providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee after furnishing details / copy of the statement based on which the impugned assessment order has been passed. From the above it is seen that matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision - Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:Appeals against CIT (Appeals) orders regarding denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act and levy of interest. Interpretation of relevant case laws by ITAT Bangalore Bench.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of Exemption under Section 10(38) of the ActThe assesses filed appeals against the decision of the CIT (Appeals) denying the claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption and levied interest under relevant provisions. The representative of the assessee provided detailed explanation and relevant documentary evidence to support the claim. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the appeals before ITAT Bangalore. The learned Authorised Representative argued that the issue was covered by a decision of ITAT Bangalore Bench in a specific case. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative cited judgments in favor of the Department to support their stance.Issue 2: Interpretation of Relevant Case LawsAfter hearing both parties and examining the material on record, ITAT Bangalore found that the issue was similar to a case decided by the Tribunal previously. Referring to the case of Shri. Kirti K. Bhansali, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with specific directions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair hearing and providing relevant details to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeals for statistical purposes, remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer with similar directions as in the aforementioned case.Conclusion:The ITAT Bangalore Bench, in its judgment, addressed the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act and the interpretation of relevant case laws. By following precedents and emphasizing fair hearings and provision of necessary details, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeals of the assesses were allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in tax assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
