ITAT Amritsar Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not properly represented before the lower authorities and thus remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication (de novo). The AO was directed to grant a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard, admit all evidence, and adjudicate the case on merits, specifically considering the CBDT instruction for cash deposits by senior citizens.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s inadvertent omission to adjudicate the specific addition of Rs. 27.57 lakhs, a fact acknowledged by the Ld. DR. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for specific adjudication on the ground relating to the addition of Rs. 27.50 lakhs (unexplained loans or customer advance) that was previously unaddressed.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether proper notices for hearing were served by the CIT(A) to the assessee's specified email ID. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all grounds on merits, after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard as per section 282 read with Rule 127. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The tribunal condoned the 199-day delay, finding that the assessee was genuinely unaware of the order due to non-receipt of communications. It held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) and, therefore, remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to consider the application for registration afresh, directing the assessee to file all necessary documents within thirty days.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, both applications for registration and approval were remanded back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) must reconsider the applications afresh after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to submit all necessary documentary evidence.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the opportunity of hearing and the address used for notices. It found that the CIT(A) had considered only deposits without accounting for withdrawals and that the assessee had presented bank statements, Aadhar card, and cash flow statements before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to furnish all necessary evidence and cooperate.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal, acknowledging that the underlying issue of 80G exemption had already been addressed by a separate order from the PCIT. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had violated Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules and principles of natural justice by admitting fresh documentary evidence from the assessee without forwarding it to the AO for verification or a remand report. Citing judicial precedents emphasizing mandatory compliance with Rule 46A(3) post-admission of additional evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A), while dismissing the assessee's appeal, erroneously discussed provisions related to Section 271D and 269SS, instead of the applicable Sections 271E and 269T. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was an inadvertent mistake and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the penalty imposed under Section 271E.

The Tribunal observed that a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted by the CIT(E) before rejecting the applications. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand both applications (for registration u/s 12A/12AB and approval u/s 80G) back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain their charitable work and submit necessary supporting documentary evidences.

The Tribunal found that the 114-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was bona fide, as the assessment order was not served on the assessee's registered email IDs but on the previous counsel's email, leading to the assessee's unawareness. Applying a liberal approach to condone the delay, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for admission and fresh adjudication of all grounds on merits, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal ruled that the impounded loose sheet of paper, being unsigned, undated, and uncorroborated, lacked evidentiary value and could not be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income, especially since both the assessee and the seller denied any cash transactions or knowledge of the document's authenticity. The ITAT emphasized that additions cannot be made based on suspicion or uncorroborated entries in loose sheets, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and that there was no evidence of notices being served to the assessee's email ID provided in Form No. 35, only through the ITBA portal. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to file all necessary submissions and evidence, and ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, noting the bank certificate and death certificate, concluded that the bank account originally belonged to the assessee's deceased father. Given that the lower authorities did not properly consider these facts or provide adequate opportunity of being heard, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to present all documentary evidence, and the Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the assessees had a reasonable cause for the non-compliance, specifically the appellant's wife's cancer diagnosis and the need to care for her. This situation rendered the assessees incapable of fully complying with the notices and appearing before the AO. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the sustained addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- represented payments made to the property promoter via bank transfers from the assessee's savings account in earlier years, not the assessment year in question. The Ld DR concurred with the assessee's explanation and supporting documents, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(3) by admitting additional evidence without forwarding it to the AO for a remand report or verification, thereby denying natural justice. Citing High Court judgments on the mandatory nature of Rule 46A(3), the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case for both assessment years was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to produce all necessary documentary evidence for verification.

Following a precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024' is not accepted by the Revenue.

Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue for any reason.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, drawing precedence from a Madras High Court decision. It granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals by filing a miscellaneous application, if the declaration made under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024' is not ultimately accepted by the Revenue.

The Learned D.R. confirmed having no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E)'s subsequent approval of 12A registration had made the appeal infructuous. Considering the appellant's request for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the DR, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT accepted the assessee's submissions regarding the marginal 24-day delay and the reasons for non-compliance (notices sent to previous CA who left practice). The tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for admission and decision on merits, directing the assessee to file all documentary evidence and cooperate.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. Following the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in a similar case concerning the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, the Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals should their declaration under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024' not be accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, which was then dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to her serious medical condition. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to admit the appeal, condone the delay, and decide all grounds of appeal on their merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal remanded both the application for registration under section 12A and the application for approval under section 80G back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to consider the 12A application afresh from the date the assessee obtains and files the re-registration certificate under the Jammu & Kashmir Societies Registration Act, 1998. The assessee is required to furnish all necessary documents and cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the re-registration certificate was a mandatory document as per Rule 17A for processing the applications under the Income Tax Act. Considering that the assessee's re-registration application was pending, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded both the application for registration under Section 12A and the application for approval under Section 80G back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to furnish the re-registration certificate and other necessary documents upon receipt.

The Tribunal acknowledged the re-registration certificate's mandatory nature but noted the pending application. In the interest of justice, it remanded both applications back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the applications after the assessee obtains and submits the re-registration certificate, with the assessee mandated to cooperate and provide all necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's background, including her illiteracy and rural residence, and found her explanation of not being aware of the electronically sent notices to be a reasonable and bonafide cause. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 30,000 levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the 78-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's age and counsel's negligence. Observing that both the assessment and the first appeal were decided ex-parte without proper opportunity, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the cash deposits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the 67-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and there was uncertainty regarding the proper issuance of hearing notices. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as per Section 282 of the IT Act read with Rule 127 of the IT Rules.

The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing both appeals, attributing it to the assessee's pre-occupation with his daughter's medical treatment. Considering the plea of non-receipt of notices and lack of opportunity, the Tribunal remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the CIT(A) had dismissed it without adjudicating on merits. Recognizing that the assessee's husband's assessment for the same year included consideration of the cash deposits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

The Tribunal, noting the Revenue's non-objection, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (E) for fresh consideration of the Section 80G application. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and submit all required documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the 157-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition and issues with receiving notices. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to allow the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of the bank deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing both the quantum and penalty appeals. It remanded the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and directing cooperation with documentary evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also remanded to the CIT(A) to be decided based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that book profits are to be determined based on accounts maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the Companies Act, and the AO does not have the power to recompute them. The addition of CSR expenditure was deleted as it is not an enumerated adjustment under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacks the power to recompute book profits prepared by the assessee in accordance with the Companies Act and accounting standards, except for adjustments explicitly provided in Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that the CSR provision, even if considered unascertained, cannot be added back for MAT purposes as it is not one of the specified adjustments in Section 115JB.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions and High Court judgments, held that book profits are to be determined based on accounts maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) does not have the power to recompute book profits unless specifically allowed by law.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the first appeal should have been condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps during the faceless regime. The assessee was given an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.