ITAT Allahabad Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the appeal. Considering the lack of reasonable opportunity and the ex-parte nature of both the assessment and appellate orders, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. All issues, including penalty matters, were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the appeal. Considering the lack of reasonable opportunity and the ex-parte nature of both the assessment and appellate orders, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. All issues, including penalty matters, were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was cryptic and non-speaking, failing to decide the appeal on merits. With the concurrence of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The case is restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and ensuring compliance with Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the appeal. Considering the lack of reasonable opportunity and the ex-parte nature of both the assessment and appellate orders, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. All issues, including penalty matters, were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not have the opportunity to examine the availability of funds due to the assessee's non-compliance. The loan was for a house, not a car, and its utilization needed to be established. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the assessee had opted for the VSVS. It was clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the issue in dispute is ultimately found not to be settled under the VSVS.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's non-appearance and finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The ITAT confirmed that, as per Section 12A(2) of the IT Act, the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 apply from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which the application for 12AA registration is made. Since the application was made in FY 2017-18, the exemption was applicable only from AY 2018-19, thus rightly denying the claim for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal observed that since the assessee opted for the VSVS, the appeal became infructuous, a position to which the Departmental Representative had no objection. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous and treated as withdrawn, with a clarification that the assessee could seek restoration if the dispute remained unsettled under VSVS.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperation but, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, with a cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the assessee for previous non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AYs 2015-16 and 2019-20, remanding the appeals for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For AY 2018-19, the tribunal also remanded the issues regarding the 'invalid' return and the D.V.O. report-based addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and submission of evidence. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AYs 2015-16 and 2019-20, remanding the appeals for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For AY 2018-19, the tribunal also remanded the issues regarding the 'invalid' return and the D.V.O. report-based addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and submission of evidence. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that for Section 54 benefits, a residential house (building along with its appurtenant land) must be transferred. Since the assessee sold only open land and retained the building, the transaction did not qualify as a sale of residential property under Section 54, even if the land was originally appurtenant to the bungalow.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AYs 2015-16 and 2019-20, remanding the appeals for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For AY 2018-19, the tribunal also remanded the issues regarding the 'invalid' return and the D.V.O. report-based addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and submission of evidence. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte, indicating a lack of reasonable opportunity for the assessee. With the Revenue's consent, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to provide the assessee a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment was not satisfactory as it lacked details on how and when the income was earned. The conduct of the assessee over two years indicated an intention to conceal, justifying the addition under Section 69 and tax under Section 115BBE.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illiteracy and illness of a partner. It upheld the AO's initiation of reassessment and best judgment assessment due to non-compliance. However, recognizing the complexity of two PANs and the assessee's claim of having filed returns for the disputed amounts under the original PAN, the tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a *de novo* assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish evidence explaining the deposits.