ITAT Amritsar Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding no intentional neglect. It held that the appeal against the original assessment order dated 15.12.2016 was still valid and pending adjudication on merits before the CIT(A). However, the appeal against the reassessment order dated 22.12.2019 was deemed infructuous as the underlying PCIT order u/s 263 had been set aside by the ITAT. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal against the original assessment order, ensuring the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the cause. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain the delay with sufficient reasons, and thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the advance of Rs. 2.22 lakhs received by the assessee from his son for the agricultural land purchase was satisfactorily explained. The son's audited financials, showing significant contract receipts, net profit, and fixed assets, proved his financial capacity to advance the said amount. Consequently, the addition sustained by the First Appellate Authority was deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged that all submissions and documentary evidence were filed before the CIT(A), and a remand report with a rejoinder was on record. Despite the DR's request to remand to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits and the assessee's non-appearance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal observed that notices from the CIT(A) were likely not received by the assessee through the provided email ID, leading to the ex-parte dismissal without merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to furnish all necessary documentary evidence and explanations for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged that notices were sent to the correct email IDs provided by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice, to allow the assessee a fair chance to substantiate his business and explain the source of deposits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding no intentional neglect. Since the documentary evidence regarding the source of funds for the land purchase was fresh and had not been examined by the lower authorities, and considering the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment to verify the authenticity of the documents and sources of investment.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal, which was unopposed by the Departmental Representative. Based on the assessee's submission that they had no grievance after the tax liability was recomputed to Nil, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal acknowledged that notices were properly served to the assessee's registered email IDs. However, in the interest of justice and considering the nature of the assessee's business and the large turnover, it was decided to grant one final opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, instructing the assessee to submit all necessary documents, books of accounts, and explanations for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory. Since the form was filed (albeit belatedly) and was available to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment, the benefit of the new tax regime under Section 115BAC cannot be denied. The AO was directed to consider the Form 10IE for the purpose of assessment.

The Tribunal observed that all payments for the immovable properties were made through banking channels between FY 2013-14 and FY 2017-18, recorded in the books of accounts as stock-in-trade, and requisite TDS was deducted. The source of the investment was found to be fully explained from the assessee's regular bank account, and no suppression of payments was identified. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1.81 crores made under Section 69.

For AY 2018-19, the tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and quashed them, as the approval for the Section 148 notice, issued after three years from the end of the assessment year, was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. For AY 2019-20, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit and consider all documentary evidence filed by the assessee and to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits.

For AY 2018-19, the tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents, ruled that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was legally invalid because the required approval was not obtained from the competent authority (PCCIT) when issued after three years from the assessment year end. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were quashed. For AY 2019-20, the tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) to consider fresh documentary evidence and adjudicate the appeal on merits, noting the CIT(A)'s failure to do so previously.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to file written submissions, supporting documentary evidence, and the cash book to properly explain the source of the SBN cash deposits to the satisfaction of the first appellate authority.

The Tribunal condoned the 122-day delay, deeming it unintentional, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to produce all supporting documentary evidence, including the cash book, before the CIT(A), who could obtain a report from the AO on the fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that a technical error in mentioning a wrong section code is a curable defect and not a valid reason for rejecting registration, especially when the genuineness of the charitable activities is undisputed and there is no violation of Section 12A(4). Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) should treat the application as filed under the correct provisions and consider it afresh on its merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claimed return of income was not considered by the lower authorities and noted the absence of complete documentary evidence at earlier stages. To serve the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, with directions to examine available documentary evidence, verify the filed return of income, and obtain a report from the AO if necessary.

The Tribunal held that a technical defect, such as selecting a wrong section in an application, cannot be a valid ground for rejection, especially when the genuineness of charitable activities is undisputed. It emphasized that the CIT(E) had a duty to inform the assessee of the mistake and allow rectification. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal remanded both the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and the application for approval under Section 80G(5) back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the genuineness of the assessee's charitable activities was not disputed by the CIT(E) and that a mere technical/typographical error in selecting a wrong section should not be a valid ground for rejection, especially without an opportunity for rectification. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the application should be treated as filed under the correct provision and considered on its merits. Therefore, both the applications for 12A registration and 80G approval were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits due to the lack of proper documentary evidence. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the case, instructing the assessee to cooperate by furnishing all documentary evidence and submissions after being given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the 163-day delay, finding no intentional neglect. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity to present all documentary evidence, directing that notices be sent to the updated email ID. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had correctly used the email ID from Form No. 35, the lack of representation was due to non-cooperation from the previous counsel.

The Tribunal found it unclear whether proper notices were served by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documentary evidence and prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the actual delay in filing the appeal was only 59 days, satisfactorily explained by medical certificates, with the remaining period covered by TOLA extensions. It noted that the assessment was ex-parte, ignoring the uploaded tax audit report and financials. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to consider relevant circulars and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the difference in contract receipts was accounted for and taxed in the subsequent year, with corresponding expenditures, and there was no deliberate intention to conceal income. Regarding the Section 44AE addition, the Tribunal found that the truck was used in the assessee's own already-taxed contract business, so no separate income under Section 44AE was concealed. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without offering an opportunity to explain and found reassessment technically invalid due to unserved notices. However, since the assessee's supporting documentary evidence (agricultural land, bank statements) was not presented to lower authorities, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment to verify the documents and investment source.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of income and the claim for deduction, despite being debatable and potentially not legally sustainable, was bona fide and not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also emphasized that omnibus show-cause notices for penalty, without striking off inapplicable portions, indicate non-application of mind and vitiate penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, applying principles of natural justice, admitted the appeal. It restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to present its case and evidence there.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, remanded the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits. It directed the assessee to present and prove their case promptly and instructed the CIT(A) not to raise the issue of delay in filing the appeal.

Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was specifically directed not to raise the issue of delay again, and the assessee was instructed to present its case promptly.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was framed cryptically without due consideration of the assessee's substantial documentation regarding the impugned purchases. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the AO was directed to conduct a de novo assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to present and prove its case.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal admitted the appeal, citing principles of natural justice, and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal specifically directed the Ld. CIT(A) not to raise the issue of delay again.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, admitted the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to represent their case and provide supporting evidence before the CIT(A) forthwith.

The Tribunal condoned the 298-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that even if a conservative construction cost of Rs. 2.50 Lacs was considered, the capital gains would be Nil. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 1 Lacs to the assessee's income and allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the liability to pay advance tax only arises in cases of taxable income. Therefore, it restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits, specifically directing the CIT(A) to decide the case without raising the issue of advance tax payment. The assessee was instructed to present and prove their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all grounds on merits after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and enabling them to file all documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned a 1-day delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to explain with documentary evidence that no advance tax was payable u/s 210. Upon satisfactory explanation, the CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal on merits, waiving the provisions of section 249(4)(b).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was provisionally registered and its activities were within its trust objectives, finding no bar in receiving single-entity donations or having common trustees. It noted that the CIT(E) arbitrarily rejected extensive documentary evidence of charitable activities without disproving them. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded both the registration application u/s 12AB and the 80G(5) approval application back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing a re-evaluation of all submitted evidence and allowing the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It accepted the assessee's revised turnover of Rs. 2.20 crores for estimating business profits at 2%, granting consequential relief. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs for unexplained investment in land, finding the assessee's explanations contradictory and lacking supporting evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was provisionally registered and had submitted comprehensive evidence of charitable activities that were not proven false. It ruled that perceived issues like single-source donations or common trustees were not bars to registration if activities were genuinely charitable. The matter was thus remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of both applications with a fair hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the assessee's exemption claim under Section 10(26) and other documentary evidence necessitate thorough examination by the Assessing Officer. Given the initial ex-parte assessment, the remand for fresh assessment was deemed legally justified to ensure a fair and proper evaluation of the case as per provisions of law.

The tribunal refused to condone the substantial delay, citing the absence of a condonation request, lack of sufficient reasons, the assessee's non-cooperation, and incorrect statements in the appeal memorandum. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.

The Tribunal condoned the 338-day delay, finding no intentional neglect, given the assessee's background and his lawyer's illness. Observing that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits and had not considered fresh evidence, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all supporting documents.

The Tribunal condoned a 2-month delay in filing, noting the ex-parte assessment and the remand of a related case. It set aside the matter and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to provide all documentary evidence and the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on 13.04.2021, was invalid as it failed to adhere to the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021, specifically regarding compliance with Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d). The Tribunal also noted the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature on the notice and the failure to serve notices on the registered email ID, thereby voiding the entire reassessment and deeming it time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

Given that the 12AB registration has now been granted, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions) to consider the 80G application afresh. The assessee will be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal ruled that the assessment completed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Jammu, was bad in law and null and void because the ACIT, as the jurisdictional AO, did not independently record reasons and issue the notice u/s 148. Additionally, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit of Rs.27,31,299/- by providing audited financial statements and bank statements, leading to the deletion of the addition made under Section 68.

The Tribunal condoned a 49-day delay in filing the appeal but rejected the additional ground on territorial jurisdiction. It held that the CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition ex parte without properly considering the assessee's claim of running a business and the necessity to tax only the profit element, not the entire cash deposit. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for limited verification of the business activity and application of an appropriate net profit/gross profit rate.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance from previous withdrawals in the same bank account. It noted that the Income Tax authorities failed to establish that these withdrawn funds were utilized for any other purpose. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained merely due to a time gap between cash withdrawals and subsequent re-deposits if the source is explained.

The Tribunal condoned a 12-day delay in filing the appeal but observed intentional misrepresentation of facts by the assessee and imposed a token cost of Rs. 5,000. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to furnish all necessary documentary evidence and cooperate.