ITAT Allahabad Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's history of similar trading and favorable past decisions but noted the current year's dispute regarding the submission of contract notes/broker statements. Concluding that it is in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination to determine if the derivative trades for the assessment year 2015-16 met the conditions specified in Explanations 1 & 2 to section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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.

During the hearing, the authorized representative for the assessee submitted that the appeals were not being pressed. The Departmental Representative for Revenue raised no objection to this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as not pressed by the appellant assessee.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 noted the assessee's contention that proper opportunity was not provided by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It restored the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 17,31,050/- to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the matter of quantifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty by duly considering the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and CIT(A) in computing the surviving quantum additions and the tax sought to be evaded.

The Tribunal, with the agreement of both parties, restored the matter of penalty quantification under Section 271(1)(c) to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty after considering orders from the High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A), and specific directions from an order dated 15/07/2014.

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.

With the agreement of both parties, the Tribunal restored the matter of quantifying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) to the Assessing Officer. The A.O. is directed to re-compute the penalty after duly considering the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and CIT(A) for determining the surviving quantum additions and the tax sought to be evaded.

The Tribunal, with the agreement of both parties, restored the matter of penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty by giving due consideration to the orders of the High Court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the CIT(A), including specific orders dated 15/07/2014, for 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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s orders. It restored the applications for registration under sections 12A/12AA and 80G(5) back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass de novo orders in accordance with law.

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 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 Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals as the Revenue did not object. It observed that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned orders and directed a de novo hearing, requiring the CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals, which determine the additions made by the Assessing Officer and thus the 'tax sought to be evaded', are still pending before the CIT(A). The ITAT held that it is premature for the CIT(A) to decide penalty appeals under section 271(1)(c) until the quantum of additions is finalized. Therefore, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) concerning penalties were set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to pass de novo orders after deciding 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.