ITAT Agra Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that since the trust was created for the benefit of specified beneficiaries, who are relatives and do not have taxable income, and considering the proviso to section 164(1) of the Act, the income should be taxed at the normal rate, not MMR.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the delay was not intentional and there was sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits, despite being expected to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to afford the assessee a last opportunity for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the delay was not intentional and was due to the firm's email address becoming inoperative. While the assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had been unresponsive to various notices. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, especially when the assessee claimed no taxable income. The statutory requirement for advance tax payment is triggered only when there is an obligation to pay it.

The Tribunal held that the provision of Section 249(4)(a) is directory and not mandatory. Since the assessee had paid the due and admitted tax after the initial delay, the appeal should be admitted and decided on merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-responsive conduct throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite this, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent and cooperative.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was crucial and went to the root of the matter. The opportunity provided by the AO to explain the source of the cash deposit was not reasonable or sufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the significant delay but took judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic period, which was also considered by the Supreme Court for extension of limitation. Therefore, a substantial part of the delay was condoned. The remaining delay was conditionally condoned subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide required details and documents to establish the genuineness of its charitable activities. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present necessary evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(E) on multiple occasions. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, but the assessee failed to submit a written response. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to make submissions despite opportunities, citing principles of natural justice not being observed. The Tribunal decided to give one last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's firm being closed and its email becoming inoperative. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to afford the assessee a last opportunity and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It was noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices during assessment proceedings and failed to substantiate contentions before the CIT(Appeals). However, since the assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 144, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after seeking explanation from the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to respond to multiple notices from the CIT(Appeals) and also failed to make submissions before the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex parte assessment under section 144. However, the CIT(Appeals) order lacked the necessary points for determination and reasons as required by section 250(6).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It was observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had attempted to file replies on 16.12.2024 but the department's portal did not allow it. Therefore, to provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal decided to grant one more chance to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had requested an adjournment and faced issues with the e-filing portal. Recognizing the circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a history of not responding to notices from the tax authorities. Although the appeal was delayed, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal decided to provide one last opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 12AA registration could not be denied as it was granted before the re-assessment. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was made under section 143(1) for a highly debatable issue. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Raj Kumar Bothra's case, which held that such disallowances for debatable issues should not be made under section 143(1) and the Assessing Officer should have resorted to section 143(3).

The tribunal noted the assessee's lack of response to notices from the CIT(Appeals) and their irresponsible conduct. However, in the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to give a last opportunity and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of response to notices from the CIT(Appeals) for both assessment years. Despite this, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to notices from the first appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the interest of justice and un-controverted facts presented in the assessee's affidavit. It was observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and without stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing an ex parte order without deciding the issues on merits and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) was expected to state points for determination, decision, and reasons as per section 250(6).

The Tribunal found that the assessee's first appeal was initially admitted as a regular appeal by the earlier CIT(A)-2, Agra, and subsequent dismissal by NFAC, Delhi, on grounds of limitation was unjustified. The Tribunal condoned any delay in filing and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices from the CIT(Appeals) and also failed to make submissions before the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(Appeals) was expected to provide reasons for the decision. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessee was unaware of the impugned orders due to issues with their registered email ID. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the case, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be bona fide. The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the cases and without stating the reasons for the decision as required by law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be bona fide. It was noted that the CIT(Appeals) had passed ex-parte orders without discussing the merits of the case, despite issuing notices. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to afford the assessee a last opportunity.

The assessee's representative stated that the first appeal against the assessment order is pending before the CIT(Appeals) and requested to dismiss the current appeal as withdrawn. The Departmental representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's contentions and the facts presented. Recognizing the need for a fair determination of income, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the assessee's affidavit and Supreme Court directions regarding COVID-19 related delays. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed ex parte, violating principles of natural justice, as the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the PCIT. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to afford a last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) observed immediate cash withdrawals after each deposit and a minimal balance in the bank account, which did not appear to be a regular business transaction. Without examining the purpose of these withdrawals, the addition made by the AO could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was unclear about whether the default constituted 'underreporting' or 'misreporting' under Section 270A, leading to an unsustainable penalty. For the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), the Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not complying with the notice due to his retired military status and outdated address, making the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer was unclear about whether the case involved underreporting or misreporting, and also because the income was estimated without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted as there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices, which were addressed to an outdated military address.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider complete submissions of the assessee and did not discuss the merits of the capital introduction for four out of five partners. It also noted the assessee's legal plea that unexplained capital introduction should be taxed in the hands of the individual partners, not the firm. The Tribunal further observed that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity for a personal or video conference hearing.