ITAT Allahabad Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus liability to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. For certain business expense disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict disallowances to 5% of the total claim, following a coordinate bench's order. The issue of freight and cartage expenses was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to unclear factual matrix.

The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus liability to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. For certain business expense disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict disallowances to 5% of the total claim, following a coordinate bench's order. The issue of freight and cartage expenses was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to unclear factual matrix.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.