ITAT Agra Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. A key grievance was the non-provision of the remand report to the assessee for filing a rejoinder. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's initiation of proceedings under section 263 was not justified. The original assessment under section 147 was completed after due verification of the transaction with Super Shine Industries. The issue regarding Prithivi Traders was not part of the original reasons for reopening and was raised subsequently by the PCIT. The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue regarding the Prithivi Traders transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had remained non-responsive to notices issued by the first appellate authority. Despite the assessee's uncooperative conduct, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present his submissions. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a Central Government entity and the default was technical. It emphasized the importance of principles of natural justice and affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals without considering these aspects.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were levied for a technical default in filing statements, not for non-deduction or non-remittance of TDS. It was also noted that the assessee, being a government entity, was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case. The principles of natural justice and the saving clause under Section 273B, which allows for immunity from penalty if a reasonable cause is established, were considered.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a Central Government entity and the failure to file TDS statements was a technical default, as the tax was deducted and remitted. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity to make submissions before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the penalty orders.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee's mother's serious illness and subsequent demise, and lack of professional assistance. Citing the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits, which did not comply with section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal also observed the assessee's lack of response and cooperation throughout the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the failure to file TDS statements was a technical default. The assessee contended they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case and that the penalties were not leviable as the tax was deducted and deposited. The Tribunal noted that Section 272A(2) has a saving clause under Section 273B for establishing a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, considering the reasons provided as sufficient and in the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal held that technicalities should not bar a party from seeking justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a government entity and the default was primarily technical, related to the non-filing of TDS statements. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice and the principle that procedural rules should advance justice. The penalties were subject to the saving clause under Section 273B, allowing for immunity if a reasonable cause was established.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a Central Government body, was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case and demonstrate reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS statements. The procedural lapse was considered technical, and the substantive issue of TDS deduction and remittance was not disputed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. The primary issue was the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 54B. The Tribunal found that the additional evidences filed by the assessee needed proper consideration and that an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the remand report was not given.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper hearing on merit and that restoring the matter to the CIT(A) would be in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal before it, noting a reasonable cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal also condoned a meagre delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the assessment order being passed in the wrong name and without a PAN reference. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and the material on record. Finding that a denovo assessment was required in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to be heard and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had sustained the addition relying on the AO's ex-parte order and had not decided the issue on merit. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained by the CIT(A) relying on an ex-parte order of the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal felt that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 144 without giving proper opportunity to the assessee, and the CIT(A) affirmed this action. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, deemed a denovo assessment necessary.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications. The trust was in its infancy, having been registered only on 17.10.2023, and the expectations of immediate extensive activities and publicity were unreasonable. The submitted audited books of account and evidence of donations and expenditures, including medical aid provided, supported the charitable nature of the activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 was passed without adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, with a direction to give the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the quantum addition was based purely on an estimated basis. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions.

The Tribunal observed that for payments made for advertisement expenses, the aggregate of payments to certain parties exceeded Rs. 75,000, thus TDS was applicable as per the proviso to Section 194C(5). However, regarding the construction payments to Ronit Developers, the Tribunal inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the charitable institution, directing the AO to consider only the 4% margin on the total contract value for TDS under Section 194J.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1650 days, recognizing that the assessee's error in filing the ROI under the wrong section and awaiting rectification constituted sufficient cause. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter requires a denovo assessment. The issues are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment and resided in a remote area, which caused delays. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing before the CIT(A) and ITAT in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application, considering the trust was in its infancy stage and had provided documentary evidence of its activities and expenses. The expectation of extensive future plans and media coverage from a newly formed trust was deemed unreasonable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had issued multiple notices for response, but the assessee failed to submit. However, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to provide reasons for the decision as required. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to state points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by Section 250(6). The Tribunal also considered the assessee's grievance about not being provided a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide an opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the valuation report submitted by the DVO and the assessee's objections. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.