ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Firstly, regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors., the Tribunal adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice and condoned the delays. However, to account for the negligence in representing the case before lower authorities, the assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Secondly, concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied based on an addition of Rs. 31,00,716/-. It was also observed that the quantum proceedings for this addition had been restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the issue of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars could not be effectively adjudicated without the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate them afresh after considering the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for the assessee to furnish details and explanations regarding the source of capital introduction/debit balance in partnership firms. However, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to provide the required details and supporting evidence. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel admitted the inability to furnish necessary documents before the lower authorities and requested another opportunity. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to present evidence and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, including bank statements and explanations for cash deposits, and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 8,38,614/- as Electric Expenses was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished the electricity bill for May 2016 along with the ledger account of electricity expenses. Although the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount for want of separate proof of payment, and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this, the Tribunal found that the proof of payment (electricity bill) was now on record. The Tribunal directed that the disallowance made be deleted. The ratio decidendi is that once documentary evidence like an electricity bill and ledger account is produced and its genuineness is not conclusively disproven, disallowance on the sole ground of 'want of separate proof of payment' is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the contention that a loss should be accepted as genuine simply because the assessee was not directly involved in share manipulation cannot be accepted. The substance of transactions and surrounding circumstances must be examined. Even if the assessee did not actively participate, if they benefited from artificially generated loss, the burden is on them to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to satisfactorily establish that the claimed loss represented a genuine commercial loss. Therefore, the loss claimed by the assessee cannot be accepted as genuine solely on the ground of passive beneficiary status. The Tribunal also noted that the facts and circumstances were tightly knit, with the Revenue investigating the factual operation of price volatility. The Tribunal declined to affirm the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, holding that the alleged long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee was bogus and the AO was justified in treating it as undisclosed income. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,35,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO made no independent enquiry and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to deal with the assessee's specific plea that the payment was made on behalf of a customer from funds received from him. The assessee's explanation that he is a car dealer who paid Rs. 6,35,000/- on behalf of his customer, from whom he received Rs. 6,60,000/-, supported by his bank statement and vehicle history report, was not examined or rejected with contrary material. The Tribunal found that the payment was funded by the customer's money and made in the course of the assessee's trading activity, not as an investment for his own account. The only income arising to the assessee was the margin of Rs. 25,000/-, which was below the taxable limit. Therefore, the conditions of Section 69 were not satisfied. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The issues regarding reopening, penalty, and interest were not explicitly decided as the primary addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A(9)(c) was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the claim of deduction under Section 80GGC in the original return and subsequently withdrew it during reassessment, offering the amount to tax and paying the due tax and interest. The reassessment order accepted the returned income without any further addition. The Tribunal reasoned that the mere withdrawal of a deduction claim, by itself, does not conclusively establish that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or that the case falls within the specific circumstances contemplated by Section 270A(9)(c). The claim was openly made and not concealed, and upon reopening, the assessee did not persist with the claim. There was no finding of any false entry or fabrication by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on its own coordinate bench decisions in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs. ITO and Siddharth Laxminkant Vaderkar vs. ITO, which held that a claim of deduction made transparently in the return, even if ultimately found inadmissible, does not automatically lead to a conclusion of misreporting. The penalty of Rs. 3,12,000 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Firstly, regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors., the Tribunal adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice and condoned the delays. However, to account for the negligence in representing the case before lower authorities, the assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Secondly, concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied based on an addition of Rs. 31,00,716/-. It was also observed that the quantum proceedings for this addition had been restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the issue of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars could not be effectively adjudicated without the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate them afresh after considering the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the TDS was deducted on 23-03-2023 and reflected in Form 26AS pertaining to AY 2023-24. Therefore, the assessee's claim for credit of the said TDS in AY 2024-25 cannot be accepted. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on Section 155(20) read with Rule 134/Form 71 did not appropriately address the factual situation, as the TDS was deducted during FY 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Since AY 2023-24 is not before the Tribunal in the present proceedings, it refrained from expressing a concluded opinion on the maintainability of the assessee's claim or its entitlement to TDS credit for AY 2023-24. These issues were expressly left open for consideration by the CIT(A) in the pending appeal for AY 2023-24. The Tribunal clarified that the rejection of the assessee's claim in AY 2024-25 was solely on the ground that the TDS did not pertain to that assessment year and should not be construed as an adjudication of the assessee's entitlement to such credit/refund in AY 2023-24. The CIT(A), while deciding the appeal for AY 2023-24, was given liberty to examine Form 26AS, the fact of deduction and deposit of tax, the nature and taxability/exemption of the compensation, and applicable judicial precedents. The appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2024-25 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claims regarding the non-deduction of TDS on transportation and carting expenses, the applicability of Section 194C(6), TDS already deducted and deposited, and the filing of correction statements required factual verification. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished party-wise and amount-wise reconciliation before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the party-wise reconciliation, supporting documents, PAN of recipients, applicability of Section 194C(6) conditions, number of goods carriages owned or hired, and TDS returns/correction statements. The Assessing Officer is to determine the liability under Section 201(1) and consequential interest under Section 201(1A) after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal held that since the cost of improvement was not in dispute, the statute provides for indexation benefit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to grant indexation in accordance with the law. For Ground No. 2, the Tribunal found that the issue of deposits amounting to Rs. 6,58,918/- was beyond the purview of limited scrutiny and beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no addition was called for on this count. The ratio for Ground No. 1 is that if the cost of improvement is accepted, indexation benefit should be provided as per statutory provisions. The ratio for Ground No. 2 is that additions under Section 69A are not sustainable if the issue falls outside the scope of the selected scrutiny parameters.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1 to 6, finding the reassessment proceedings to be valid. Regarding the limitation period, it was held that after excluding the time granted for the assessee to reply to the notice under Section 148A(b), the notice under Section 148 was issued within three years, making Section 149(1)(b) inapplicable. Consequently, Section 149(1)(a) was applicable, allowing reassessment even if the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. The approval under Section 151 was taken from the Principal Commissioner, which was deemed the correct authority, and any reference to Section 149(1)(b) in the approval form was considered a clerical error. The approval was deemed valid as per Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as it contained the name, office, and designation of the specified authority. The Tribunal found that the AO followed the procedure under Section 148A, and there was no merit in the contention that Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 was not satisfied or that the AO was not required to follow Section 148A. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings complied with Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, and 151. Regarding Ground No. 7, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 80GGC. It was held that the donation made to the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party was bogus, as evidenced by investigation material, statements recorded under Section 132(4), bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, stating that taxing authorities are not required to ignore surrounding circumstances and can look beyond apparent transactions. The assessee failed to establish that the contribution was a genuine donation eligible for deduction. The decisions relied upon by the assessee were distinguished. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) affirming the disallowance was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 43,37,745/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received loans totaling Rs. 42,00,000/- from a corporate entity on November 3, 2012, and November 5, 2012. Crucially, the entire loan amount of Rs. 45,50,000/- (including interest) was repaid on May 29, 2015, and interest of Rs. 3,46,466/- was paid on May 21, 2015. The Tribunal found that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan parties were not in dispute. Moreover, the receipt of the loan, its repayment, and the repayment of interest were also not doubted. Consequently, the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the loan as coming from a bogus entry provider could not be affirmed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had issued only one email notice, which did not come to the assessee's attention, leading to an ex-parte rejection. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) concerning the application and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide a proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and then decide the application on merits in accordance with the law. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, applying the principle laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), considering that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal noted the lack of effective participation by the assessee before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). To address the negligence of the assessee, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed, to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 60 days, with proof to be produced before the Ld. CIT(A). Subject to this condition, the delay was condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the assessee, who was also directed to submit all relevant materials and supporting documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The issues raised by the assessee regarding the ex-parte nature of the orders, the validity of the assessment proceedings, disallowances, and additions were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal's decision is that the assessee should be given a fair chance to present its case before the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as it went to the root of the matter and involved a legal issue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The assessee provided screenshots from old and new income-tax portals indicating the assessment order was not reflected as passed in time. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the claim regarding the passing of the order. If the Revenue could not prove that the order was passed in time, the matter would stand resolved. The parties were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal in case of contrary findings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Firstly, regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors., the Tribunal adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice and condoned the delays. However, to account for the negligence in representing the case before lower authorities, the assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Secondly, concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied based on an addition of Rs. 31,00,716/-. It was also observed that the quantum proceedings for this addition had been restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the issue of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars could not be effectively adjudicated without the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate them afresh after considering the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the specified threshold. The Departmental Representative stated the tax effect as INR 73,56,605/- as per the Memorandum of Appeal. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had made aggregate additions of INR 1,64,51,365/-. The assessee's Authorized Representative calculated the tax effect at INR 42,77,356/-. Citing CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17/09/2024, which enhances the monetary limit for departmental appeals to INR 60 Lakhs, the Tribunal found that the tax effect, as per the assessee's computation, was below this limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as 'withdrawn/not pressed' in terms of the circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if, upon re-verification, the tax effect was found to be higher than the specified monetary limit.

The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 1 as academic, having confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on merits. For Ground Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal found that the assessee was a regular share trader with documented transactions on recognized stock exchanges. The CIT(A)'s finding that there was no material connecting the assessee to accommodation entries remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal held that the preponderance of probabilities supported the assessee's stand that the losses were incurred in the ordinary course of business. For Ground No. 4, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for undervaluation of closing stock. It was noted that a demerger scheme approved by NCLT led to the transfer of Safal Realty Pvt. Ltd.'s project division, and the assessee received OCDs in resulting companies. The original cost of acquisition was apportioned, and the CIT(A) correctly appreciated that the pre-demerger valuation was distorted. The adjustment to Rs. 1,800/- per share reflected the adjusted cost post-demerger, aligning with ICDS VIII's provision on actual cost being the fair value of acquired security in exchange for another asset. The Tribunal found no legal or factual infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to respond to several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and did not furnish the required details, clarifications, and explanations. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed in Form No. 10AB. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's authorized representative requested an opportunity to make full compliance and provide all necessary details to the revenue authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant bank statements and supporting documents and to comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A for misreporting of income is not sustainable. The decision was based on the principle that a claim for deduction, even if ultimately found inadmissible, does not automatically amount to misreporting of income, unless the revenue demonstrates with cogent evidence that false evidence was furnished, facts were suppressed, or deliberate misrepresentation was made. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the donation in the return and claimed deduction based on a belief of eligibility. The disallowance arose from the Assessing Officer's dissatisfaction with the genuineness or eligibility, not from any proven misrepresentation by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench's decision in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs Income Tax Officer for AY 2019-20, which held that the mere non-challenge of a quantum addition does not imply misreporting. The penalty was deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs. ITO and Siddharth Laxminkant Vaderkar Vs. Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not specified under which sub-limb of Section 270A(9) the penalty for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting was levied. Following the precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to depart from the view taken by the co-ordinate benches. The penalty of INR 37,440/- levied under Section 270A was deleted. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the Learned CIT(A). All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's AR requested an opportunity to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and argued for a remand for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive issues were to be decided by the Ld. CIT(A). No specific finding was made on the addition of Rs. 13,26,000/- or the explanation of cash deposits, as the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee to furnish details and explanations, but the assessee failed to comply. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of ex parte. However, the Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present its case, decided to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidence, explanations, and submissions without unnecessary adjournments. The Ld. CIT(A) was instructed to examine these and adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee, including the additions under Sections 69A and 69C, undisclosed profit, the applicability of Section 115BBE, and consequential interest under Sections 234B and 234C, in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that when an appeal is dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance, and a reasonable explanation for non-compliance is offered, coupled with a request for a fresh opportunity to present the case, the appellate authority should consider restoring the matter to the file of the lower authority for a proper adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 28-07-2022, is barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the original notice under section 148 was issued on 29-06-2021. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, this notice was to be treated as a notice under section 148A(b). Information was provided to the assessee on 26-05-2022, and the assessee replied on 10-06-2022. The Tribunal, relying on Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, stated that the AO is entitled only to the period of limitation that survived on the date of the original notice. In this case, the balance period available was less than 7 days from 29-06-2021. Even granting the minimum 7 days, proceedings should have been completed and notice issued by 17-06-2022. However, approval was obtained on 26-07-2022, the order under section 148A(d) was passed on 28-07-2022, and the consequential notice under section 148 was also issued on 28-07-2022, which is beyond the surviving limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 was invalid, and the reassessment order could not be sustained. Consequently, the grounds relating to the addition on merits were rendered academic and did not require adjudication. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approach of the lower authorities in making and sustaining the addition of Rs.4,60,415/- is unsustainable. The Assessing Officer applied a 5% estimation to fresh unsecured loans without any specific material to show that these borrowings represented unexplained income. The Ld. CIT(A) mechanically upheld this addition. The Tribunal reasoned that an addition cannot be sustained merely on an ad hoc percentage; the revenue must demonstrate with specific facts and material why and to what extent any part of the loan is unexplained income. There is no statutory presumption that 5% of a loan transaction is income. Thus, the addition of Rs.4,60,415/- was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal found that all evidences like bills and vouchers were on record, and the Assessing Officer provided no tangible reason for the ad-hoc disallowance. Therefore, no addition was called for on this ground. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that no addition was called for on the count of cash payment towards credit card expenditure. The reasoning was based on the fact that the evidence of payment of the credit card was on record and not in dispute. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the utilization of funds from the corporate entity was sufficient, as the payment itself was substantiated. The ratio decidendi is that if the payment is evidenced and not disputed, and the source is explained, even if it involves cash, an addition under section 68 may not be warranted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with no issue left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by demonstrating that the cash deposits of Rs. 14,37,910/- were sufficiently covered by prior cash withdrawals of Rs. 15,73,500/- from the same bank account. A perusal of the bank statement and the 'Peak Credit Summary' confirmed the availability of cash in hand from documented withdrawals, which was sufficient to cover the subsequent deposits. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence suggesting the withdrawn funds were invested or expended elsewhere. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the source of cash deposits was prior withdrawals. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 14,37,910/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act was deleted. Ground Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were allowed. Ground No. 4, pertaining to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1), was dismissed as premature. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that mere delay in the registration of the final conveyance deed beyond the assessee's control should not bar a legitimate statutory exemption. While the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance based on the delay in registered sale deeds and the failure to establish possession within two years, the assessee presented purchase agreements and a possession letter. Since the revenue contended that some documents were not placed before the lower authorities, and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted a factual verification of possession within the stipulated period, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the agreements, possession letter, and other documents. If the AO finds that possession was obtained and consideration was paid within the two-year period, the deduction under Section 54B shall be allowed. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary evidence, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard will be granted. All contentions of the assessee are left open.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(E) rejecting the Section 12A application was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on the assessee's application. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and then decide the application on merits within six months from the receipt of the order. The appeal filed by the assessee trust was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) were filed with a significant delay of 709 and 537 days. The Ld. CIT(A) had rejected these appeals solely on the ground of delay, without adjudicating the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order itself was passed ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The assessee's grounds of appeal raised substantial issues regarding the denial of natural justice, the validity of reopening under Section 147, and the merits of the addition under Section 69. Given that the Ld. CIT(A) had not applied his mind to these grounds, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeals back to his file. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, including the consideration of the delay and the grounds raised.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by applying the principle laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), considering the death of Jagdishbhai Patel and the subsequent management of the case by his legal heir, along with the fact that the assessee was unaware of the appeal not being filed. The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case before the AO. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as a cost for the negligence in representing the case before the lower authorities. Subject to this condition, the delay was condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, including the additions, TDS, interest, and penalty proceedings, as these were to be adjudicated by the AO.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Firstly, regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors., the Tribunal adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice and condoned the delays. However, to account for the negligence in representing the case before lower authorities, the assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Secondly, concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied based on an addition of Rs. 31,00,716/-. It was also observed that the quantum proceedings for this addition had been restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the issue of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars could not be effectively adjudicated without the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate them afresh after considering the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute involves a substantive issue regarding the applicability of section 194-IA of the Act, specifically whether the stamp duty value should be considered the consideration when the assessee claims a lower agreed consideration. Since the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of TDS liability on merits.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Firstly, regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors., the Tribunal adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice and condoned the delays. However, to account for the negligence in representing the case before lower authorities, the assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Secondly, concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied based on an addition of Rs. 31,00,716/-. It was also observed that the quantum proceedings for this addition had been restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the issue of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars could not be effectively adjudicated without the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate them afresh after considering the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 790 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the confusion surrounding the newly amended provisions and the inadvertent mistake made by the assessee in selecting the wrong clause. The Tribunal held that the mistake in picking the wrong clause should not be treated as fatal to the assessee's case, especially given the complexities and ambiguities in the amended provisions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) should have recognized that the assessee was an existing and approved trust and processed the application under the appropriate clause (Clause (i) to the First Proviso to Section 80G(5)) rather than treating it as a newly formed trust under Clause (iv). The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to treat the assessee's application dated June 29, 2023, as filed under Clause (i) to the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) and consider it for renewal of approval in accordance with law, subject to fulfillment of other conditions. The CIT(E) was also directed to decide the application within six months of receiving the order. The appeal (ITA No. 2317/Ahd/2025) was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The second appeal (ITA No. 1661/Ahd/2025) regarding rejection after provisional approval was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) were filed with a significant delay of 709 and 537 days. The Ld. CIT(A) had rejected these appeals solely on the ground of delay, without adjudicating the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order itself was passed ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The assessee's grounds of appeal raised substantial issues regarding the denial of natural justice, the validity of reopening under Section 147, and the merits of the addition under Section 69. Given that the Ld. CIT(A) had not applied his mind to these grounds, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeals back to his file. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, including the consideration of the delay and the grounds raised.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 790 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the confusion surrounding the newly amended provisions and the inadvertent mistake made by the assessee in selecting the wrong clause. The Tribunal held that the mistake in picking the wrong clause should not be treated as fatal to the assessee's case, especially given the complexities and ambiguities in the amended provisions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) should have recognized that the assessee was an existing and approved trust and processed the application under the appropriate clause (Clause (i) to the First Proviso to Section 80G(5)) rather than treating it as a newly formed trust under Clause (iv). The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to treat the assessee's application dated June 29, 2023, as filed under Clause (i) to the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) and consider it for renewal of approval in accordance with law, subject to fulfillment of other conditions. The CIT(E) was also directed to decide the application within six months of receiving the order. The appeal (ITA No. 2317/Ahd/2025) was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The second appeal (ITA No. 1661/Ahd/2025) regarding rejection after provisional approval was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were without jurisdiction and thus not sustainable. The reasoning was that Section 153C of the Act mandates that if seized material during a search pertains to a person other than the searched person, it should be forwarded to that person's AO. The AO of the other person must then record satisfaction that the seized material impacts the determination of total income and can proceed under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted that Sections 153A and 153C contain non-obstante clauses that give them an overriding effect over general provisions like Section 147. This view is supported by decisions of the Gujarat High Court in 'Paras Chandreshbhai Koticha vs. ITO' and the Rajasthan High Court in 'Tirupati Construction vs. ITO' and 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT'. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed. No adjudication was made on the factual matrix as it became academic.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable and ordered its deletion. The Tribunal noted that the facts and issues in the present appeal were identical to those in the case of Gordhanbhai Modi vs. ITO (ITA No.1065/Ahd/2026), decided by a Co-ordinate Bench. In that case, the addition was deleted because the AO failed to prove unaccounted purchases based on software data found during a search. The Co-ordinate Bench had observed that the partner of M/s Tirth Gold admitted to unaccounted transactions but did not specifically admit to transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal in Gordhanbhai Modi also noted the lack of cash trail or excess stock, the denial by the assessee, and the subsequent statement from M/s Tirth Gold indicating only Rs. 20,038/- in purchases. Crucially, the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the third party. The Tribunal in the present case agreed that expecting the assessee to prove a negative (i.e., not having made unaccounted transactions) is difficult, and such transactions require positive evidence, which was lacking. Therefore, the impugned addition was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the PCIT. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and Additional CIT had clearly held that interest on loans was camouflaged as donations. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not carried out any activities genuinely or in accordance with the conditions of registration, and had failed to prove its involvement in animal welfare activities, animal aid and rescue, or distribution of food and clothing to the economically weaker sections. The Tribunal concluded that the case fell within the ambit of a specified violation under clause (e) of the Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act, based on the details of the 'specified violation'. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the PCIT's order and dismissed the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148A(b) was bad in law. A perusal of the notice and annexure revealed that the AO did not provide any information to the assessee regarding the alleged escaped income. Instead, the AO issued a questionnaire for making fishing and roving inquiries, which cannot form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in "Chetak Nandkumar Gandhi vs. ITO" (2025) 181 taxmann.com 769 (Gujarat), which held that a notice under Section 148A(b) calling for further details for making an inquiry, instead of providing information suggesting escapement of income, renders the notice of reopening under Section 148 bad in law and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the reopening of assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 were held to be bad in law. The consequential assessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed. The Tribunal did not specifically address the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 80GGC or the violation of natural justice as these issues became moot due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Form 3CL furnished by the assessee required verification at the end of the Assessing Officer (AO). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the authenticity and correctness of Form 3CL. The Tribunal clarified that it would be open for the assessee to contest the quantum of deduction admissible under the law in relation to the furnished Form 3CL. The AO was directed to decide this limited issue in accordance with the law after the verification. The Tribunal did not decide the ultimate allowability of the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 was applicable. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable, while allowing the Revenue to seek restoration on grounds of inapplicability of the circular.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. It found that the averments made by the assessee, supported by documents like SARFAESI proceedings and a death certificate, constituted reasonable cause for the Director's failure to prosecute the case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and present its case promptly. The appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The specific grounds concerning the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, procedural infirmities under Section 144B, confirmation of additions under Section 69C, application of Section 115BBE, levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, and initiation of penalty under Section 271AAC were not decided on merits by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, it was fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This decision was based on the fact that the matter had gone completely unrepresented before the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the assessee to submit all relevant details and submissions without undue delay or seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary decision was to remand the matter for a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable merely on the basis of the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80GGC. It was not disputed that the assessee had disclosed the claim in the original return and that the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made through banking channels. The disallowance was based on investigation findings concerning the political party and alleged modus operandi of bogus donations. However, for levying penalty at the enhanced rate for "misreporting," the Assessing Officer was required to establish specific ingredients of misreporting under Section 270A(9) based on the assessee's facts. Mere disallowance of a claim, even if found inadmissible, does not automatically establish misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars to attract penalty for misreporting. The material relied upon by the AO pertained to the recipient political party and did not, by itself, establish that the assessee deliberately furnished false particulars. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings require independent examination and satisfaction of statutory conditions. The distinction between an inadmissible claim and misreporting was not properly established. Therefore, the penalty order confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the penalty of Rs. 1,24,800/- was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee, including being an agriculturist, illiterate, and having a communication gap with the consultant. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee remained non-compliant during assessment proceedings and failed to furnish substantial evidence regarding the sale of immovable property. To ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to strictly comply with the Assessing Officer's notices and furnish all relevant supporting documents, including bank statements, confirmations, and identity proofs of concerned parties. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that both the assessee and the CIT(E) failed to discharge their respective responsibilities under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's applications were not accompanied by relevant supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected the applications without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority did not have sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This resulted in unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide correct contact details, furnish all supporting documents, and respond to queries without unnecessary adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate the applications afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard and considering the submitted documents. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to comply, the CIT(E) can adjudicate based on the available material. For Section 80G applications, the assessee must provide the status of Section 12AB registration.

The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) cannot be invoked at the stage of considering an application for registration under Section 12A or 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The scope of inquiry by the Commissioner at the registration stage is limited to examining the genuineness of the trust and its activities, and whether such activities are carried out in accordance with its declared objects. The question of denial of exemption under Section 11 on the ground of applicability of Section 13(1)(b) arises only during the assessment proceedings, not at the stage of registration. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had proceeded solely on the basis of the trust's objects without recording any finding that the assessee had actually incurred any expenditure for the benefit of a particular caste. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) denying registration under Section 12A was set aside. For ITA No. 45/Ahd/2026, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant final registration after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing and examining if any expenditure was incurred for the benefit of a particular caste. For ITA No. 46/Ahd/2026, the matter was also restored to the CIT(E) to adjudicate the application for renewal of registration under Section 80G, considering the reasons for delay and the decision on the Section 12A application.