ITAT Allahabad Judgments — September 2025

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,C/O B. K. KAPUR CO. vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 137/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that lower authorities failed to grant effective opportunity, thereby violating natural justice. Consequently, both the impugned assessment and penalty orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 35/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

ITA 41/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

MINTO COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

ITA 54/ALLD/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

ITA 39/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

ITA 13/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

ITA 40/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 14/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs NAVJEEVAN PEDIATRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

ITA 44/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 36/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 37/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 39/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

MINTO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

ITA 337/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 38/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 40/ALLD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 34/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

GYAN VIKAS SAMITI,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , AMBEDKAR NAGAR

ITA 7/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and ruled that the CIT(A) violated natural justice by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without providing a show cause notice or opportunity to be heard. Consequently, both the CIT(A)'s orders for the assessment and penalty appeals were set aside, with directions for *de novo* orders after granting the assessee a proper hearing and deciding on the merits, including the applicability of Section 249(4).

JIYAUDDIN KHAN,MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH vs ITO 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ, MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH

ITA 139/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the principles of natural justice and the possibility of condoning the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merit and had not passed a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

JEEVAN JYOTI INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD , ALLAHABAD

ITA 56/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and procedural infirmities. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

RAJU SINGH PAL,,BINDKI, FATEHPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(4), FATEHPUR

ITA 73/ALLD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty under section 250(6) of the Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, even if the assessee does not appear. Dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without considering the merits was erroneous. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a denovo order on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

ANURAG YADAV,KANNAUJ vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), KANNAUJ, UTTAR PRADESH

ITA 78/ALLD/2025[2015-2016]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016Remanded

The ITAT noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A). To ensure the principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to present their case and is directed to cooperate with the AO by furnishing all requisite information and evidence.

GYAN VIKAS SAMITI ,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

ITA 8/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and ruled that the CIT(A) violated natural justice by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without providing a show cause notice or opportunity to be heard. Consequently, both the CIT(A)'s orders for the assessment and penalty appeals were set aside, with directions for *de novo* orders after granting the assessee a proper hearing and deciding on the merits, including the applicability of Section 249(4).

BALESHWAR NATH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,,BHADOHI vs CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

ITA 63/ALLD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of exemption under sections 10 & 11 back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This implies that the denial of exemption by CPC without proper inquiry was incorrect.

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs DC/ACIT-2, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

ITA 138/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that lower authorities failed to grant effective opportunity, thereby violating natural justice. Consequently, both the impugned assessment and penalty orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

MANGALAM SERVICE STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL , ALLAHABAD

ITA 165/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted all disputed issues concerning the additions made by the AO back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a de novo order after providing the assessee with a fresh and reasonable opportunity to present their case and furnish necessary details.

RAMANAND GUPTA,MAHARAJGANJ vs ITO 1(4) MAHARAJGANJ, MAHARAJGANJ

ITA 122/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the appeal. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, providing the assessee a fresh opportunity.

M/S DIVYA CONSTRUCTION CO,BHADOHI vs DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR

ITA 37/ALLD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal ruled that taxing the same amount twice on a substantive basis in different hands is impermissible. Since substantive additions for Rs. 1,45,73,000/- were already completed and attained finality in the hands of the loan creditors for AY 2012-13, the addition in the assessee's hands for AY 2013-14 was deleted. The addition of Rs. 8,73,656/- to the net profit was confirmed as the assessee could not substantiate its objection.

VIKAS RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs DY,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

ITA 96/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed its appellate order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing on merits, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act.

NAV NIRMAN,ALLAHABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

ITA 31/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The ITAT observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed their respective orders without providing sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. With no objection from the Revenue, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

GRAMEEN VIKAS SANSTHAN,MAHARAJGANJ vs CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

ITA 166/ALLD/2024[2024-25]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2025AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s order and restored the matter for a de novo order. The CIT (Exemptions) is directed to reconsider the application for registration under sections 12A/12AA after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

SHIRISH JAISWAL,PRATAGARH vs ITO PRATAPGARH, PRATAPGARH

ITA 161/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the assessee's plea of no reasonable opportunity, and with no objection from the Departmental Representative, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to pass a de novo assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.