ITAT Amritsar Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and for filing written submissions. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present all necessary documentary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to discuss the certificates submitted by the assessee regarding his Scheduled Tribe status and business in Ladakh. As the authenticity of these documents and the claim for exemption under Section 10(26) needed verification, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the exemption claim allowed subject to verification.

The Tribunal condoned the 190-day delay, acknowledging the medical emergency of the consultant's daughter. It observed that the CIT(E) did not allow sufficient time or proper opportunity for compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, directing the assessee to file all necessary documentary evidence and for CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had validly exercised the option under section 115BAC(5) by filing Form 10IE on January 3, 2022, for AY 2021-22. As per the provisions, an option once exercised cannot be withdrawn and applies to all subsequent years, and the form was available on record. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Form 10IE for the assessment year under appeal and allow the benefit of the new tax regime.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the issues of unabsorbed business losses (AY 2017-18 and 2020-21), unabsorbed depreciation, and the GST disallowance back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claims from existing records, allow genuine and legally permissible claims, and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, ensuring no claim is denied due to mere technical or procedural lapses. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Considering the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to produce the cash book and explain the source of cash deposits, the Tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide all grounds on merits after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and filing necessary documents.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance at lower levels but acknowledging contentions regarding jurisdictional thresholds (u/s 149(1)(b)) and sources of funds (renewals of FDRs, inter-bank transfers), set aside both the quantum and penalty appeals. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to furnish all documentary evidence and cooperate.

The Tribunal observed that a subsequent order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) under Section 245D(4) had covered all seized documents for the relevant assessment years and found no adverse inference after March 2020. Since the CIT(E) did not consider this ITSC order, which had material bearing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The application was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication, directing consideration of the ITSC settlement order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity to submit the necessary evidence for the creditworthiness of the three remaining trustees. The assessee is directed to file all submissions and evidence and cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance during reassessment and appellate proceedings, making it impossible to ascertain the quantum of fresh investments or the source of cash deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded both the quantum appeal and the connected penalty appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment on merits. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to furnish all documentary evidence and explain the sources of investments and cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the 80G(5) application, based on the ITO's and Inspector's reports, without confronting the assessee with these adverse reports, violated the principle of natural justice. The order was set aside and the matter remanded back to the CIT(E) with directions to provide the assessee with the reports and a fresh opportunity of being heard before deciding the matter again.

The Tribunal, citing precedents, ruled that procedural deviations should not be fatal. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications on merits, allow rectification of technical mistakes in the application form or sub-clause, and grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) properly examined the assessee's detailed submissions, books of accounts, and explanations regarding the nature of cash deposits and PAN requirements for sales. The AO failed to reconcile the declared cash sales with total cash deposits and did not investigate the source of the remaining cash. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the assessment and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh de novo assessment to properly consider all evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) failed to adequately consider certain affidavits and submissions from the assessee, particularly regarding compliance with legal requirements and the non-infringement of Section 2(1) (first proviso). Furthermore, the CIT(E)'s order did not discuss the validity of the assessee's registration under section 12A of the Act. To ensure proper opportunity and consideration of all facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.

The ITAT condoned the 353-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting reasons like the father's serious illness and internet/curfew restrictions in Kashmir. It set aside the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A), restoring the matter to the AO for a *de novo* assessment. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and furnish all necessary documents and evidence.

The Tribunal, following a precedent, ruled that the rejection on technical grounds, stemming from a procedural mistake in the application form or sub-clause, was not justified. It directed the CIT(E) to consider the application under the correct provisions, evaluate it on merits, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal effectively remanded both appeals for fresh consideration by the CIT(E).

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting the assessee, a senior citizen, claimed she did not receive proper notice and was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide both parties a proper opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to present her case and evidence.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting that a critical ground regarding limitation was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing and allow them to furnish all documents/evidences. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their latches in appearing before the CIT(A).

The ITAT condoned the 89-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A), the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the case afresh on merits after allowing the assessee to submit all necessary documents and evidence.

The Tribunal observed that documentary evidence suggested the cash deposits belonged to the partnership firm, which is separately assessed. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to verify all documentary evidence and books of account to confirm if the cash deposits were sale proceeds of the partnership business and were fully explained.

The Tribunal found sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning both the 10-day delay in filing and the delay in full payment of the appeal fee. Given that the CIT(A) order was non-speaking and passed ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the interest of natural justice and fair play.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted books of accounts, purchase ledger, and bank ledger, claiming most purchases were through banking channels, which the Ld. CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate or verify. Noting the need for factual verification, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period was adequately explained as it originated from accumulated savings regularly disclosed in wealth tax returns filed before the demonetization. Since the revenue could not provide evidence that the cash was utilized elsewhere, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity by the CIT(E) to present its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee another opportunity to file submissions and explanations regarding the delay in filing the application for 80G(5) registration and to decide the matter afresh as per law.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee might not be liable for advance tax and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to admit the appeal, provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and dispose of the grounds on merits after verifying the documentary evidences regarding the source of cash deposits.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the CIT(A) has the power under the amended Section 251(1)(a) to set aside ex-parte assessment orders and refer the case back to the AO for fresh assessment when the appeal is against an order made u/s 144. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach judicious and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by submitting PAN, Aadhaar, ITRs, bank statements, and ledger accounts, demonstrating the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The loans were received and repaid through banking channels. Citing several judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that suspicion cannot outweigh evidence and that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries into the submitted documents. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 51,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasonable cause for delay due to administrative hurdles and, considering the newly inserted proviso to Section 12A by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which allows for condonation of delay with reasonable cause, and its retrospective applicability for the benefit of assessees, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application, condone the delay if satisfied with the reasonable cause, and decide the registration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing evidence of the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, including PAN, Aadhaar, ITRs, and bank statements showing transactions and repayment through banking channels. It emphasized that mere non-response to AO's notices or suspicion is insufficient for an addition under Section 68, especially when loans are repaid. The Tribunal deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 51,00,000/- and dismissed the Revenue's cross-appeal, affirming that the assessee had sufficiently explained the credits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the first appellate authority acted judiciously in setting aside the ex-parte assessment orders for fresh assessment, especially considering the powers granted under amended Section 251(1)(a) when an appeal is against an order made under Section 144. The Tribunal found no error or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the 771-day delay and then decide the appeal on its merits as per Section 282 read with Rule 127 of the I.T. Rules.

The Tribunal, following judicial precedents, condoned the delay in filing Form 10AB under Section 80G(5). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) with directions to decide the applications on their merits, and the assessee was directed to furnish all necessary documents. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, following judicial precedents, condoned the delay in filing Form No.10AB under section 80G(5). The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) with directions to decide the application on merits, giving the assessee an opportunity to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the 226-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's circumstances. Recognizing that the assessment and first appeal were conducted ex-parte, and to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their lapses in non-appearance, to be deposited to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the first appellate authority acted judiciously and was empowered under the amended Section 251(1)(a) to set aside ex-parte assessments made u/s 144 for fresh assessment, ensuring reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the first appellate authority had judiciously set aside the ex-parte assessment orders for fresh assessment. It noted that the CIT(A) was empowered under section 251(1)(a) to direct a fresh assessment, especially when the original assessment was made ex-parte under section 144 and required affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of cash deposits originating from small gifts and past personal savings to be plausible. Considering the assessee's background and income being below the taxable limit, the availability of these sources could not be ruled out. Consequently, the impugned addition of Rs. 3.52 Lacs was held to be not sustainable on merits.

The Tribunal observed that CPC had largely accepted the returned income and that profit on sale of investments had been correctly offered and accepted under the head capital gains. Therefore, the adjustment of Rs.5.94 Lacs confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unwarranted. The tribunal deleted the adjustment sustained in the impugned order.

The tribunal ruled that the assessment proceedings were null and void as the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) was issued to a deceased person. Citing several High Court judgments, it clarified that such a notice is a condition precedent for jurisdiction and, if issued to a dead person, renders the entire proceedings void-ab-initio. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act was deemed inapplicable since proceedings were not initiated against the assessee during her lifetime.

The Tribunal observed that lower authorities did not adequately examine the assessee's claims regarding agricultural activities and income as the source of the cash deposit, nor the availability of cash from his/father's bank withdrawals, and did not provide sufficient opportunity of being heard. It noted a discrepancy in the addition amount (Rs. 10,40,000/- vs Rs. 10,24,000/- contested). Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the assessee's claims.

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's bonafide belief that their previous counsel was handling the proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders at both assessment and first appellate stages. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary documents. A token cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligence in appearing before the CIT(A).

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities but noted that new submissions and additional evidence were filed, requiring factual verification. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documents, and a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed for the latches in appearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's charitable status and potential for exempt income, held that the first appeal should have been admitted. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and adjudicate the case on its merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and dismissed it with contradictory reasons regarding the delay. Noting the minor, explained delay and the department's no-objection, the Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal and two associated penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment for both assessment years. The assessee is now required to plead and prove its case regarding the source of deposits forthwith.