ITAT Amritsar Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 24-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding no willful default. Regarding the 257-day delay at the CIT(A) level, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to allow the assessee to furnish proper documents and explanations for the delay, and then to decide the appeal on its merits if the delay is satisfactorily explained and condoned.

The Tribunal found that the rectification order and the CIT(A)'s order lacked clear reasons for the disallowance of the section 80P claim, which appeared to be based on presumptions about the return being belated. It also noted the absence of intimation for the 143(1)(a) adjustment. Considering the ambiguity and the potential applicability of CBDT circulars extending the due dates, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the 189-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's genuine unawareness of the assessment order until her bank account was attached. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal, provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide the case on its merits. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits. Given the documentary evidence presented by the assessee at the Tribunal stage and the explanation for non-compliance by his counsel, the matter is set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment and proper verification, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the factual aspects were closely linked to AY 2011-12, for which a previous CIT(A) order directed considering all eight family bank accounts for a consolidated cash flow. In the interest of justice and proper adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. All material and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, along with full cooperation, are to be considered. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits, keeping all issues open.

The Tribunal condoned the 359-day delay, finding it unintentional and caused by a medical emergency, as evidenced by medical documents. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the registration application, with a direction for the assessee to submit all requested documentary evidence and cooperate fully.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed that the assessee be provided a reasonable opportunity to furnish fresh documentary evidence explaining the source of the cash deposits, and the AO should obtain a report on these new evidences. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, keeping all issues open.

The Tribunal observed that the current appeal was against a CIT(A) order dated 15.07.2024, which itself dismissed a duplicate appeal as the original appeal against the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 had been adjudicated earlier by the CIT(A) on 12.07.2024. As the assessee failed to appear or make submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal before it was infructuous and dismissed it.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for technical reasons without adjudicating on merits and considering the assessee's submissions. Observing issues with notice delivery, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate fully and submit all necessary documents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the CPC erred by disallowing the deduction u/s 154 without reasons or providing an opportunity to the assessee u/s 154(3). Relying on the Apex Court precedent, it held that even a belatedly filed audit report (Form 10CCB) should be considered if it was available before the completion of assessment or rectification proceedings. As the Form 10CCB was filed before the rectification order, the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iv).

The Tribunal condoned the 67-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's judicial custody. It found that the reassessment was based on misinformation regarding the cash deposit, which was actually Rs. 2,02,500/-, not Rs. 52.27 lakhs, and this amount was part of the declared gross turnover of Rs. 57.82 lakhs. As the actual deposit was below the threshold of Board Instruction No. 3/2017, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had failed to adequately consider the affidavits and confirmations from commission agents regarding agricultural sales provided by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to consider all documentary evidence and for the assessee to fully cooperate.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application, the deposit of tax and interest, and the lack of objection from the Ld. DR. Finding the request acceptable, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal after confirming the submission of a certificate under section 92(1) of Finance Act (No. 2) 2024 and noting that the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee was not properly served notices by the CIT(A) due to an incorrect email address being used.

The Tribunal observed that documentary evidence (banker's certificate, audited balance sheet, tax audit report, partnership deed, VAT returns) indicated the bank account belonged to the partnership firm. However, these documents were not presented to the AO during the original assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment to examine all documentary evidence and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, related penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal observed that documentary evidence (banker's certificate, audited balance sheet, tax audit report, partnership deed, VAT returns) indicated the bank account belonged to the partnership firm. However, these documents were not presented to the AO during the original assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment to examine all documentary evidence and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, related penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial cash withdrawals from his bank account in prior years, agricultural income from his land, and income from dealing in second-hand cars. Considering these sources, the Tribunal allowed a further benefit of Rs. 6,00,000, restricting the addition to Rs. 2,22,000.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal bearing ITA No. 131/Asr/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that documentary evidence (banker's certificate, audited balance sheet, tax audit report, partnership deed, VAT returns) indicated the bank account belonged to the partnership firm. However, these documents were not presented to the AO during the original assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment to examine all documentary evidence and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, related penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application without issuing a show-cause notice or providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to file all necessary documents and cooperate.

The Tribunal ruled that the NFAC CIT(A)'s order was void ab-initio because it was passed against an assessment order that no longer legally existed, having merged with a prior CIT(A) order that was later set aside by the ITAT for fresh adjudication. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority to verify the factual aspects from its own records and decide as per the provisions of law.

The Tribunal condoned the 237-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing the assessee from participating. It remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, instructing to provide the assessee a full opportunity to submit all necessary documentary evidence, including books of accounts, to explain the cash deposits.

The Tribunal observed that the notice of hearing was not issued to the proper e-mail ID as specified in Form No. 35, which resulted in non-service of notice on the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act, after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and considering relevant Apex Court judgments. The ground relating to the disallowance of provident fund was not adjudicated upon as it was raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently failed to appear or furnish evidence despite numerous opportunities before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself (16 hearings). Since the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the cash deposit, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was upheld.

The Tribunal observed that the confusion arose from the incorrect TDS claim by the assessee, and the income was already disclosed and assessed in the partnership's hands. To prevent double taxation and ensure proper verification, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to provide all supporting documents, including audit reports and partnership books, to substantiate the claim that the gross contract receipts were taxed in the partnership.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening notice under section 147/148. While rejecting the initial explanation based on an agreement to sell land due to lack of evidence, it recognized additional documentary evidence of the assessee's agricultural land and cultivation. The Tribunal enhanced the allowed agricultural income by an additional Rs. 3 lakhs, thereby reducing the unexplained cash addition under section 69 from Rs. 5.95 lakhs to Rs. 2.95 lakhs.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to produce all documentary evidence and books of account, noting that the evidence was presented for the first time. The Tribunal also imposed a token cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for intentional non-cooperation during the previous appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that an incorrect section code should not disqualify a valid application, and the CIT(E)'s rejection without considering documentary evidence and the CBDT Circular violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, taking into account the CBDT Circular and all evidence, and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a merits-based adjudication and acknowledged the possibility that ITBA notices might not have been tracked by the assessee. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from commenting on the merits of the addition, leaving all legal issues open.

The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the bank account numbers mentioned in the assessment orders for the assessee and his wife. Recognizing that the disputed amount had already been settled by the wife under the VSV Scheme, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the bank account details with Kotak Mahindra Bank and delete the addition in the assessee's hands if it pertains to the already settled amount and no other unexplained deposit is found.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on its merits due to the assessee's non-representation and lack of documentary evidence. In the interest of justice and to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee is directed to submit all necessary documents and cooperate during the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee before rejecting the application, which constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter of registration was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice and acknowledging potential communication issues in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a directive for the assessee to present and substantiate their case.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice and acknowledging potential communication issues in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a directive for the assessee to present and substantiate their case.

Considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.