ITAT Allahabad Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under section 250(6) to pass a speaking order. Considering both parties' agreement, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues, including the addition made in the assessment, to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing reasonable opportunity. Penalty issues under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were also restored to the AO, pending the outcome of the de novo assessment.

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 determined that the CIT(A) was statutorily obligated under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matters in dispute, including penalty issues, were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to be carried out after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

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 noted that the loan claimed by the assessee was a home loan from HDFC, not a car loan from SBI as initially stated, and there was no evidence of its utilization for the car or non-utilization for a house. Given the lack of compliance before the AO and the need for factual verification regarding the loan's use, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh inquiry to determine the utilization of the housing loan and pass a new order.

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 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 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 determined that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case by the CIT(A). Consequently, all ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded all cases back for fresh adjudication after ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2015-16 and 2019-20, remanding the appeals for fresh consideration with reasonable opportunity for the assessee. For AY 2018-19, the issue of the 'invalid' return (due to technical default of non-e-verification) and the addition based on the D.V.O. report were also remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh appellate order, directing the assessee to produce documentary evidence.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This ensures the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.

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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded all cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee for explaining the facts. To serve substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded all cases back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and 2019-20, remanding them for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For AY 2018-19, the issues regarding the 'invalid' return (technical default) and the addition based on the DVO report were also remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and evidence from the assessee.

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 upheld the classification of rental income from two properties as business income but allowed depreciation under Section 32(1) Explanation 5. It confirmed the addition of Rs. 1.85 Crores as unexplained investment under Section 69, taxable under Section 115BBE, finding no bona fide disclosure. The issue of unsecured sundry creditors of Rs. 3,96,606/- under Section 68 was remanded back to the AO to verify evidence of repayment.

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.