ITAT Allahabad Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination, acknowledging the assessee's past favorable ITAT decisions but emphasizing the need to verify compliance with Explanations 1 & 2 to Section 43(5) for the current year.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to the appeals not being pressed. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as not pressed, based on the appellant's submission.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to the appeals not being pressed. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as not pressed, based on the appellant's submission.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits or passing a speaking order. Citing Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a de novo decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the transaction of M/s Sakshi Barter Pvt. Ltd. taking funds from Infraplus India Pvt. Ltd. for capital contribution was genuine, and all three ingredients (identity, capacity, genuineness) were established. The Tribunal also found that the amounts received from individual persons/HUF for the Rs. 56,80,000/- addition were small and consistent with their financial capacity.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities passed orders without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to be passed after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a de novo assessment order, taking into consideration the assessee's submissions as detailed in paragraph 3 of the order and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Given that the quantum appeal, which forms the basis for the penalty, is pending fresh adjudication before the CIT(A), the tribunal restored the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass a de novo order on penalty after the quantum appeal is decided and after providing a reasonable opportunity to both sides.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acceding to the assessee's request due to their participation in the VSVS. It also clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the issue remains unsettled under the VSVS.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a de novo order on merits after ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on its merits or passing a speaking order. Emphasizing the statutory duty under section 250(6) of the I.T. Act for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to pass a de novo order on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order by the AO and the appellate order by the CIT(A) were passed ex-parte, thus denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal 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 opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), as supported by detailed medical papers and his senior citizen status. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and decide the matter de novo on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee during their respective proceedings. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the disputed issue of the Rs. 8,76,530/- addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment with specific directions to afford proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal, with the agreement of both parties, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to conduct a de novo assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, thereby disposing of all grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing a de novo order.

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as there was no objection from the Revenue. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting no objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that the assessee be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the CIT (Exemptions) to consider the applications afresh for registration u/s 12A/12AA and 80G(5), after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the CIT (Exemptions) to consider the applications afresh for registration u/s 12A/12AA and 80G(5), after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the impugned ex-parte appellate orders of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to pass fresh de novo orders in accordance with law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that it was premature for the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeals under section 271(1)(c) while the quantum appeals, which determine the final additions and hence the "tax sought to be evaded", were still undecided. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) concerning penalties were set aside. The CIT(A) was directed to pass de novo orders on penalties only after deciding the merits of the additions in the quantum appeals.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the impugned ex-parte appellate orders of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to pass fresh de novo orders in accordance with law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted relevant inquiries and the assessee had made detailed submissions. The PCIT failed to consider these submissions and provide a speaking order, making the Section 263 order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that it was premature for the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeals under section 271(1)(c) while the quantum appeals, which determine the final additions and hence the "tax sought to be evaded", were still undecided. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) concerning penalties were set aside. The CIT(A) was directed to pass de novo orders on penalties only after deciding the merits of the additions in the quantum appeals.