ITAT Amritsar Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine impression and subsequent counsel advice. It determined that due to improper service of notices, particularly the lack of email communication, the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT (E) for fresh consideration of the registration application on its merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the medical condition of the secretary. The Tribunal found that notices were issued through various means as per Section 282 of the Act. However, to provide a chance for natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemptions).

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on third-party statements recorded behind the assessee's back, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, are bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal also found that the AO made additions based on wrong reasons to believe, as evidenced by incorrect figures in the recorded reasons. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the 92-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation of counsel negligence. However, the Tribunal noted that proper notices were served via email as per rules, and imposed a token cost on the assessee due to negligence. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is legally entitled to the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) as it is an educational institution with gross receipts below Rs. 1 crore. It was a bonafide mistake in mentioning the wrong section and should not lead to denial of legitimate claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted all necessary documents online on 10.07.2024, which appeared to have been overlooked by the CIT(E). The revenue did not object to a remand.

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the dispute was settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', rendering the appeal infructuous. However, the parties are at liberty to revive the appeal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the assessee fails to get the full benefit due to technicalities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits. The Tribunal found that no proper notice was served to the assessee, and the rejection was based on a lack of communication, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's orders were cryptic and non-speaking, as they did not sufficiently consider the charitable activities of the trust. The tribunal noted that the registration was granted as a "religious entity" but without adequate discussion on its charitable nature.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was a 'non-speaking order' as it failed to discuss the charitable activities of the trust and improperly rejected the application for registration as a charitable trust and for approval under Section 80G(5). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to the e-submission portal being closed early and a significant time gap before the order was passed, preventing the assessee from presenting their case adequately. Fresh evidence was admitted for consideration.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation for the delay, along with the CBDT circular extending the filing deadline and a High Court judgment stating that a minor delay alone cannot be a ground for rejection. The Tribunal noted that the charitable activities of the trust were not in doubt and the show cause notice for rejection was not properly served.

The Tribunal noted that the charitable activities of the trust were not doubted and that the show cause notice for rejection was not properly served, providing insufficient time for a reply. The Tribunal also considered a High Court judgment stating that minor delay should not be a ground for rejection and a CBDT circular extending the filing deadline. It was also observed that the application for final registration u/s 80G(5) was filed within the prescribed time after provisional approval.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposit needs to be substantiated with documentary evidence related to agricultural holdings and income. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits due to the assessee's absence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits, and that service of notices by the ITBA Portal might not be considered proper service.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had not considered all the materials on record. It was also noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits or consider all available evidence, and the proceedings at both assessment and appellate stages were ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded both the quantum addition and the related penalty appeal back to the AO for fresh assessment and reconsideration, granting the assessee a full opportunity to present documentary evidence and cooperate.

The assessee furnished additional evidence during the first appeal, including affidavits, bank statements, and land pledged for a loan, which were subjected to a remand report by the AO. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition after considering the evidence and the remand report.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with statutory requirements despite huge turnover. The past profit trends were inconsistent, making them unreliable for estimation. Therefore, the estimation by the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument challenging the reassessment jurisdiction and the AO's application of mind. The assessee also sought to introduce additional grounds and evidence.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the AO. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the issue involved a debatable interpretation of law and that the assessee had acted under a bona fide belief regarding the deductibility of expenses. Given that full details were provided and the expenditure was not found to be non-genuine, a penalty could not be levied. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal, granting liberty to seek revival if the settlement fails. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving findings on merits, as the assessee had not furnished submissions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished details to the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the appellant's prolonged absence from the country and lack of proper communication from the revenue authorities. The Tribunal found that the issues were not discussed on merit at the lower levels.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claim with documentary evidence. Therefore, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee concerning the disputed purchases, acknowledging that these documents could not be filed before the AO initially. The matter was remanded back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including purchase invoices, ledger accounts, sales confirmations, and VAT returns, which were not produced before the AO due to various reasons. The Tribunal found that these documents were crucial for verifying the genuineness of the purchases.

The Tribunal found that the issues were not discussed on merit. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as it was not intentional or wilful. However, due to the absence of the assessee's representative, the case was to be decided in consultation with the DR. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Revenue's DR. Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication issues in the faceless regime, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the dispute settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal also clarified that the appeal could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the assessee failed to get the full benefit due to technicalities.

Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. It was clarified that if the assessee faces technical issues preventing full benefits of the scheme, both parties retain the liberty to apply for revival of the appeal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal, noting that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024' to resolve the dispute.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the settlement of the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', rendering the appeal infructuous. It was clarified that if the assessee failed to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities, they could revive the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It further clarified that in case of technical issues preventing full benefit, the assessee could apply for revival under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the specified limitation period.