ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the invocation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the Assessing Officer failed to categorically mention in the assessment order and notice the specific component of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty provisions act independently, but the AO must specify the limb invoked.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (Exemption) in the interest of natural justice and directed the CIT to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees by issuing physical notices.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in the interest of natural justice. It directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity for hearing by issuing physical notice, allowing the assessee to furnish all relevant materials.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to categorically mention the grounds for penalty in the assessment order and notice. Therefore, the invocation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the denial of registration without proper opportunity to be heard, due to technical issues with email communication, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees by issuing physical notices and then pass orders in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 127 days considering the assessee's rural background and the reasons provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for registration under Section 80G of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to categorically mention in the assessment order and the penalty notice whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the assessee had filed a return of income and the additions were already present in bank account transactions, the penalty imposed was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessment order and penalty notice did not clearly specify the grounds for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was incorrect in passing the impugned order before the expiry of the time limit for filing the reply. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of delay without affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Considering the circumstances, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication after verifying the documents to be filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now provided the relevant documents and considering the principles of natural justice, the matter should be set aside to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This is to ensure the principle of natural justice, allowing the assessee to furnish required documents for registration.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) granted only one effective opportunity and did not consider all objects of the trust. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E), directing another opportunity for the assessee to explain how its objects are charitable as per Section 2(15). The Section 80G(5) approval is to be re-adjudicated after the Section 12A decision.

The Tribunal held that the object in question was not solely or substantially for religious purposes and that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure related to it. The Tribunal also noted that the trust had removed this object from its Memorandum of Objects and Purposes.

The Tribunal considered the submission and the relevant CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if Form No. 2 was not issued or the VSV Scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for the source of cash deposits. The initial explanation of trading business was not substantiated with evidence and was considered an afterthought. The subsequent explanation regarding sale of property by her father also lacked documentary evidence. The reassessment proceedings were found to be valid.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the VSVS scheme. Since no objection was raised by the DR, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if any difficulty arose in implementing the scheme.

Considering the assessee's submission regarding the VSV Scheme and relevant CBDT circulars, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if Form No. 2 was not issued or the VSV application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) relied on only a few objects and did not consider them in totality, and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to grant another opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to provide proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Considering the submission and CBDT circulars, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if Form No.2 is not issued or the VSV application is rejected.

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was excessively technical, as section 12AB registration is a preliminary stage to assess genuineness, not an income assessment, and the trust had explained its non-filing of ITRs. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that issuing only two notices without a final show-cause notice or effective opportunity did not meet the threshold of reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the rejection orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While not accepting the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for filing documents, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications without affording a fair and adequate opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice. The rejection of the 80G(5) application was also based on the rejection of the 12AB application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax when the assessee disputed the very validity of the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's submission of an affidavit admitting inadvertence in not checking the e-portal for notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, with a direction that non-compliance would allow the CIT(E) to pass orders based on available material.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

The assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative raised no objection.

The tribunal considered the submission and the CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek recall if Form No. 2 was not issued or the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal considered the submission and, in view of the CBDT Circulars, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if Form No. 2 is not issued or the VSV application is rejected.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the VSVS settlement scheme. The Departmental Representative raised no objection.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the VSV Scheme and, in line with CBDT Circulars, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if Form No. 2 was not issued or the application was rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that, as per Section 244A, the assessee is entitled to interest from the 1st day of April of the assessment year until the date the refund is actually granted. Since the refund was granted on 23rd March 2020 via an order u/s 154, the interest should be computed up to this date. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-compute the interest accordingly and provide the working to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee deposits the due taxes and interest, no further interest can be charged on that amount for the period after the deposit. The action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest after the deposit was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest income was baseless, as it was the assessee's money, and he had the discretion to invest it in immovable property rather than for earning interest.

The Tribunal held that uploading notices on the ITBA portal is not proper service as per the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee's non-representation was not intentional. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, as the filing date was wrongly recorded. On merits, it was held that the interest earned by the cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 69A addition of Rs.1 crore, finding the amount was disclosed, offered to tax, and TDS was deducted, thus not being unexplained money. For the Section 68 additions of Rs.4.05 crore from Origin Lifecare and Fringe Properties, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adequately verify crucial aspects like actual loan repayment, operational status, and creditworthiness of the lenders. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on these loans and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned a 19-day delay in filing the appeal. While the CIT(A) confirmed the additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case, especially considering the company was struck off by ROC and a revival petition was pending.