ITAT Amritsar Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found the 169-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was satisfactorily explained by the assessee's mental distress due to her daughter's divorce. The Tribunal condoned this delay and remanded the penalty matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to hear it together with the pending quantum appeal for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding sufficient and bonafide cause. For AY 2017-18, it held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merged with the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3), directing the AO to rectify the demand. For other assessment years, the Tribunal held that if section 11 exemption is denied, the assessee trust should be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxed only on its surplus income after allowing all relevant expenditure, as disallowing expenses would amount to taxing gross receipts, not income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the current applications due to the technical deficiency of filing under the wrong clause. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to file fresh applications under the correct clause, directing the CIT(E) to condone the delay and consider them de novo without prejudice to the merits.

The Tribunal found that the notices and the appellate order were indeed sent to a wrong email ID. Concluding that the assessee was not at fault for non-receipt, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 238 days. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the reassessment was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' and initiated on 'reasons to suspect' without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, the department's prime witness. It also found a violation of natural justice as the Show Cause Notice u/s 144B was issued with less than 24 hours to respond. The tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its primary burden of proof with comprehensive documentation, and the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by rejecting the applications without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to explain its activities or furnish documentary evidence. It noted the CIT(E) also failed to identify specific deficiencies in the trust's objects or violations of Section 2(15). Consequently, both matters were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a full opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that the Additional CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Additional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard for verification of TDS deduction.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is instructed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and consider the re-registration certificate which the assessee undertook to furnish. The 80G(5) application was also remanded for reconsideration in conjunction with the 12A registration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the Addl. CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Addl. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing to the assessee for verification of TDS deduction details.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications, finding no infirmity in the decision based on the technical defect. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to both assessee trusts to file fresh applications in the correct clause before the CIT(E), who shall condone any delay in such filings and examine the applications de novo without being influenced by the present order's observations on the merits.

The Tribunal observed discrepancies in VAT forms (XXXVI) regarding the movement of goods and matching RC numbers, suggesting that some purchase bills might not be genuine. Without ruling on the merits or the validity of reassessment initiation (u/s 147/148 vs 153C), the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Ld. first appellate authority for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to clarify and provide satisfactory evidence for the identified discrepancies.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, remanded all matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the applications after granting the assessees a proper opportunity of hearing and upon furnishing of the required re-registration certificate, setting aside the previous assessment order.

The Tribunal determined that the ex-parte assessment orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying on a Delhi High Court judgment affirming the right to a personal hearing in faceless assessments, the Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and remanded both cases back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing the AO to grant sufficient opportunity of being heard, including issuing a Show Cause Notice.

The tribunal condoned the filing delay and, emphasizing principles of natural justice, remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees and issue a show cause notice before passing a reasoned order. This decision was supported by the Delhi High Court judgment in "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India" regarding the right to personal hearing.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC passed ex-parte orders without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating natural justice. Citing a Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to issue a show cause notice and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not issue proper notice of hearing to the assessee's e-mail ID, thereby denying an opportunity to explain the SBN deposit with books of account. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to produce all necessary documentary evidence and books of account.

The Tribunal noted the extensive powers vested in the PCIT/CIT under Section 12AB and the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) to condone delays in filing applications for registration, including those for converting provisional to regular registration. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, with a direction for the assessee to file a necessary condonation application.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, remanded all appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of hearing and consider the re-registration certificates which the assessees undertook to file. The application for 80G(5) approval was also remanded, as its approval was contingent on the 12A registration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the appeal summarily without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the case on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, ruling that the interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under the head 'income from other sources' as per Section 56(2)(viii) and not as capital gains. It also affirmed the allowance of a 50% deduction under Section 57(iv) of the Act, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The ITAT condoned the delay, acknowledging technical irregularities in notice delivery and incorrect address. It remanded both cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide proper opportunity of hearing as per Section 282, ensure correct notice delivery (including email), and for the assessees to furnish books of account and evidence for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal condoned an 83-day delay in filing the appeal due to the Chairman's medical issues. It observed that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions or adjudicating on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, requiring the assessee to produce all necessary books of account and documentary evidence for verification of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2019-20, concurring with the first appellate authority's refusal to condone the inordinate delays. For AY 2022-23 and 2023-24, concerning MMR taxation, the cases were remanded back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and present evidence, acknowledging the lack of cooperation from the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2019-20, affirming the first appellate authority's decision due to the assessee's unexplained delays and non-prosecution. For A.Y. 2022-23 and 2023-24, considering the assessee's failure to respond to notices and furnish documentary evidence, but in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded these cases back to the first appellate authority to provide a proper hearing and adjudicate on the merits after the assessee files all supporting documents.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2019-20 due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to explain the delay. For AYs 2022-23 and 2023-24, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on the merits of being taxed at MMR and to file supporting documentary evidence.

The tribunal dismissed appeals ITA Nos. 457 to 459/Asr/2024 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing and non-prosecution by the assessee. For ITA Nos. 460 and 461/Asr/2024, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing on merits, directing the assessee to submit all supporting documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned both the short delay before it and the substantial delays before the JCIT(A), finding the reasons for delay bonafide. For AY 2017-18, the demand created u/s 143(1)(a) was held to have merged with the subsequent assessment order u/s 143(3). For other AYs, the Tribunal directed that if Section 11 benefit is denied, the trust should be assessed as an AOP, and only the surplus income after allowing all revenue expenses should be taxed, not gross receipts. All four appeals were restored to the AO for re-adjudication consistent with these observations.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing appeals before both the JCIT(A) and itself, finding sufficient and bona fide cause. For Assessment Year 2017-18, it directed the AO to rectify the demand created under Section 143(1)(a), noting its merger with the Section 143(3) assessment order. For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2022-23, the Tribunal held that if Section 11 benefit is denied, the trust should be assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP), allowing deduction of all relevant revenue expenses from surplus income, as gross receipts cannot be taxed.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays, accepting the assessee's genuine reasons. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the Section 143(1)(a) intimation merged with the subsequent Section 143(3) assessment order, directing the AO to rectify the demand. For other assessment years where Section 11 benefit was denied, the Tribunal directed the AO to assess the trust as an AOP and allow deduction of revenue expenses from surplus income, ensuring only actual income is taxed, not gross receipts.

The Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to review the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in light of the amended trust deed and dispose of the 80G(5) approval application simultaneously. The assessee is required to cooperate and provide necessary documentary evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had cured the defect by amending the trust deed. Both appeals were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications for registration and approval, taking into account the amended trust deed. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documentary evidence during the fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and that the critical issue of the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, was raised for the first time. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits, including the DIN issue, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication of all grounds on merits. The assessee was directed to file all documentary evidence and submissions and fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the 146-day delay, finding no willful default or neglect given the assessee's explanation of being abroad. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to verify the income disclosed in the original return u/s 139(1) against Form 26AS and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered a bank certificate and relevant Gazette Notifications, specifically Notification No. 2774 SO 3544(E) dated 24.11.2016, which extended the legal tender status of SBNs for certain transactions, including mobile top-ups, until December 15, 2016. Upon review, it was found that only Rs. 6,000/- was deposited after this extended period (between 17.12.2016 to 21.12.2016). Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 6,000/-, and the assessee was granted consequential relief for the remaining amount.

The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment initiation lacked independent application of mind by the AO and violated principles of natural justice by denying cross-examination of Mr. Dinesh Jain. It observed that Jain's statement was factually inapplicable as the assessee was the seller, not the buyer, and the disputed sales were already recorded and taxed, making further additions a case of double taxation. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from a High Court precedent relied upon by the Revenue.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing by not sending notices to the assessee's registered email ID, only through the ITBA portal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of the assessee's post-survey books and the determination of gross sales based on impounded materials and corroborated statements. However, it directed the AO to calculate business profit at 8% of the upheld gross sales of Rs. 1.87 crores, recognizing the assessee's intention for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD(4). This adjustment provides consequential relief to the assessee, modifying the assessed income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without adhering to principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and submit documentary evidence. If the reasons are found to be sufficient and acceptable, the CIT(A) shall admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits.

The Tribunal, applying Supreme Court judgments (Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal) on the 'surviving period' for reassessment notices under the new regime, held that the notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 was time-barred. The correct timeline for issuing such a notice, incorporating the 24-day 'surviving period', expired on 26.06.2022, rendering the actual notice issued on 25.07.2022 invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 (with 144B) were quashed.