ITAT Allahabad Judgments — September 2025

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).

The tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to grant proper and effective opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, both the assessment order (in ITA 138) and the penalty order (in ITA 137) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Authority for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee due opportunity to present its case and evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal ex-parte without deciding on the merits was unsustainable. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on all grounds, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.