ITAT Allahabad Judgments — June 2025

10 orders · Page 1 of 1

The Tribunal found that the assessee's name discrepancy was minor and confirmed the audit report date was a typographical error, supported by a CA's affidavit. Recognizing the underlying eligibility for Section 12AA exemption, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

ISRAIL,CHITRAKOOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANDA

ITA 30/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and by failing to pass a speaking order on merits, which violates Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

JAIN SHIKSHA VIKASH SAMITI ,SULTANPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 49/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2025AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), with no mala-fide intention. Consequently, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and pass a fresh order on merits after allowing a proper opportunity of hearing.

HARISH CHANDAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1) ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

ITA 26/ALLD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that both the AO's assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues in dispute were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.

SEEMA PAL,BHARATPUR vs ITO WARD (4)(2)(3), KANNAUJ, KANNAUJ

ITA 51/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2025AY 2017-18Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

ALOK RAI,ALLAHBAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC DELHI, ALLAHABAD

ITA 48/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2025AY 2014-15Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A), satisfying the conditions of section 249(3). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and pass a de novo speaking order on merits, also considering the assessee's grievance regarding the lack of reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings.

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

ITA 23/ALLD/2025[2008-09]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2025AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erroneously ignored the assessee's timely manual appeal. It therefore set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a fresh de novo order, mandating that the CIT(A) consider the manual appeal after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

ANURAG JAISWAL,LUCKNOW vs ITO2(1)/ ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

ITA 50/ALLD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erroneously confirmed the penalty by reasoning that the quantum appeal was decided against the assessee, even though the underlying quantum additions were set aside by the ITAT. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order, directing consideration of any consequential assessment order.