ITAT Agra Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee on the grounds raised. The Tribunal found that the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, as it stood, provided for the application of Sections 11 and 12 to preceding assessment years where assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration under Section 12AA, provided the objects and activities of the trust remained the same. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA effective from 01.04.2013 on 15.10.2018, and crucially, the appeal proceedings for all the impugned assessment years were pending before the CIT(A) on the date of registration. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that proceedings before the CIT(A) are an extension of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal was satisfied with the assessee's reliance on judicial precedents that supported the retrospective operation of the second proviso to Section 12A(2). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the assessment years in question. The appeals were allowed on these grounds. Remaining grounds were not adjudicated as they were not argued.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective grant of registration under Section 12AA, coupled with the second proviso to Section 12A(2), allowed the assessee to claim exemption under Section 11 for the assessment years where appeal proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The payment of education extension services to another charitable institution was also considered a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective grant of registration under Section 12AA, coupled with the second proviso to Section 12A(2), allowed the assessee to claim exemption under Section 11 for the assessment years where appeal proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The payment of education extension services to another charitable institution was also considered a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective grant of registration under Section 12AA, coupled with the second proviso to Section 12A(2), allowed the assessee to claim exemption under Section 11 for the assessment years where appeal proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The payment of education extension services to another charitable institution was also considered a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective grant of registration under Section 12AA, coupled with the second proviso to Section 12A(2), allowed the assessee to claim exemption under Section 11 for the assessment years where appeal proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The payment of education extension services to another charitable institution was also considered a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the affidavits as non-genuine solely because they were similarly worded and dated, especially when submitted after a long period. The Tribunal found no substantial infirmity in the affidavits and considered the explanation of the source of cash substantiated.

The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant/assessee did not appear and failed to cure the defect of an unsigned Form-36, despite being issued defect memos. Therefore, the appeal was considered non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed against a dead person without proper substitution of legal heirs is a nullity in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order is set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(Appeals) rejected the prayer for additional evidence without cogent reasons. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was presented without a signed Form-36 and that the appellant did not rectify this deficiency after being notified. Consequently, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent her case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits. While the assessee's conduct of not responding to notices was not appreciated, the tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, considering the assessee's age and circumstances. It directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay condonation applications for four appeals and to pass a fresh order on merits for one appeal, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was quashed due to invalid reopening, the penalty levied for the assessment year does not survive and is therefore cancelled.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, considering the assessee's age and circumstances. It directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay condonation applications for four appeals and to pass a fresh order on merits for one appeal, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was empowered to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in cases where the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal did not find it proper to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, especially since the principles of natural justice were not followed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, considering the assessee's age and circumstances. It directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay condonation applications for four appeals and to pass a fresh order on merits for one appeal, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, considering the assessee's age and circumstances. It directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay condonation applications for four appeals and to pass a fresh order on merits for one appeal, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, considering the assessee's age and circumstances. It directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay condonation applications for four appeals and to pass a fresh order on merits for one appeal, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the turnover appearing in the Insight portal (Rs. 15,31,09,373/-) was consistent with the assessee's financial statements and ITR. Regarding the GST late fees of Rs. 623/-, the Tribunal held it to be an allowable expense based on the decisions relied upon by the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits. While the assessee's conduct of not responding to notices was not appreciated, the tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, despite the assessee's lack of cooperation. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations regarding the reconciliation of credit entries and reasons for discrepancies in turnover required verification, which was not done by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to represent their case effectively.

The Tribunal condoned the 42-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons reasonable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, including the claim that the land sold was agricultural.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case and expected the CIT(Appeals) to state points for determination and reasons for the decision. The Tribunal decided to afford a last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) reiterated the assessment order without a logical discussion on merits and failed to state points for determination, decision, and reasons as required. The tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals before the ITAT, citing reasons of illness of the assessee's manager. For AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to non-condonation of delay. For AY 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside as one of the grounds was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, noting that the impugned order was not based on merits and lacked proper application of mind. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to ensure observance of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals before the ITAT, citing reasons of illness of the assessee's manager. For AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to non-condonation of delay. For AY 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside as one of the grounds was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals before the ITAT, citing reasons of illness of the assessee's manager. For AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to non-condonation of delay. For AY 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside as one of the grounds was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and FAA, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's illiteracy and lack of knowledge about tax procedures. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the notice u/s 147/148 was not served and that the lands sold were agricultural. Considering it in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal. Citing various precedents, it emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Tribunal condoned the delay, setting aside the ex-parte order and remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is empowered to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer when the assessment order is passed u/s 144, especially when the assessee did not respond to notices and principles of natural justice were not complied with. The Tribunal found no prejudice caused to the assessee by remanding the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the demise of their tax professional to be reasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case and without following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, contrary to the requirements of Section 250(6). While the assessee was also unresponsive, the Tribunal decided to grant a last opportunity for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that once the revisionary order under Section 263 is quashed, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order, become redundant and infructuous.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-appearance before the CIT(A) reasonable and admitted additional evidence. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-responsive conduct but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disregarded the principle of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's genuine reason for adjournment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case, violating principles of natural justice. The reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) were considered bonafide.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. It was expected that the CIT(Appeals) would state points for determination, decision, and reasons as per Section 250(6) of the Act. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the AO ought to have conducted necessary verification with credit card agencies to ascertain the truth, especially since the AIR information provided credit card numbers and agency details. A simple verification with KYC information could have revealed the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication.