ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit documents.

The Tribunal condoned the 421-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues, but noted the assessee's non-chalant attitude in not participating in previous proceedings. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, levying a cost of Rs.5,000/- for non-participation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition regarding unexplained cash credit without proper examination or discussion of the evidence, and also deleted the addition regarding share premium without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company vs CIT.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without the assessee's participation. While criticizing the assessee's non-chalant attitude, the Tribunal provided one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument regarding the capital nature of the forex gain was flawed, particularly as incidental charges were treated as revenue. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim of violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee missed notices from the CIT(A) due to a changed email ID, leading to non-prosecution of the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's habitual default, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay, without condoning it, and upheld the TDS-CPC order. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly followed ICDS III for revenue recognition using the POCM. The Tribunal also found that the method of paying GST on invoice value, as opposed to POCM, had no implication on the computation of total income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the reasons provided in the affidavit were sufficient cause, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The appeal was set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the condonation application and proceed with adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued very close to the assessment completion date during the Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, the Tribunal held that non-prosecution or non-appearance does not render an appeal not maintainable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that it is in the interest of justice to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E) with all requisite evidences, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, and accordingly set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not represented their case before the CIT(A) and the assessment was done based on no explanation. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding sufficient reasons. The CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with notices. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before lower authorities, set aside the ex-parte order in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the AO for a denovo assessment, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding sufficient reasons. The CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with notices. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-response. However, considering the nature of the business and the volume of cash deposits, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to reduce the addition to Rs. 1 lakh to plug any revenue leakage, rather than confirming the entire addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding sufficient reasons. The CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with notices. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding sufficient reasons. The CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with notices. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, the Tribunal held that non-prosecution or non-appearance does not render an appeal not maintainable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be continued on the basis of the original notice under Section 148 if the reason for reopening the assessment is no longer valid. A fresh notice would be necessary in such cases.

The Tribunal held that penalty was not leviable on the disallowances under Section 43A and Section 40A(3) as the original assessment order did not record the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. For the under-valuation of closing stock, the Tribunal found the issue to be debatable and the assessee's method to be in line with established judicial precedents, thus deleting the penalty on this ground as well.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal without a remand report due to the AO's persistent non-compliance. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's contention regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the additional income was purely based on estimation with inherent subjectivity. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form No.67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Following precedents from the Madras High Court and ITAT Chennai, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and directed to grant FTC after verifying Form No.67.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, allowed the appeals in the interest of justice and equity by restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity for representation.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee for adjudication, referencing the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Mitesh Impex and the Apex Court's decisions in NTPC v. CIT and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal held that a claim available in law, even if raised for the first time in appellate proceedings due to inadvertence or misunderstanding, cannot be shut out indefinitely. While the factual details for these grounds were not available at the assessment stage, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contention against admission. However, acknowledging the need for factual verification and that these grounds were not raised before lower authorities, the Tribunal admitted these grounds and set them aside to the AO for de novo consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing. These grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a ground not raised by the CPC, and that the assessee had indeed filed the audit report (Form 10B) on time, which disclosed the accumulated income. The Tribunal relied on a High Court decision where late filing of Form 10 did not disentitle the trust from exemption.

The Tribunal held that when a domestic company distributes dividends to non-resident shareholders, the Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) under Section 115-O of the Act applies at the rate specified in Section 115-O, not the rate in the DTAA applicable to the non-resident shareholder. The decision of the Special Bench in DCIT v. Total Oil India (P) Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that when a domestic company distributes dividends to non-resident shareholders, the Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) under Section 115-O of the Act applies at the rate specified in Section 115-O, not the rate in the DTAA applicable to the non-resident shareholder. The decision of the Special Bench in DCIT v. Total Oil India (P) Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that when a domestic company distributes dividends to non-resident shareholders, the Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) under Section 115-O of the Act applies at the rate specified in Section 115-O, not the rate in the DTAA applicable to the non-resident shareholder. The decision of the Special Bench in DCIT v. Total Oil India (P) Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days, stating that the reasons provided were sufficient and not willful. The Tribunal remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application and pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days, stating that the reasons provided were sufficient and not willful. The Tribunal remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application and pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, allowed the appeals in the interest of justice and equity by restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity for representation.

The tribunal held that although the assessee had defaulted in appearing, principles of natural justice require granting another opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of the SBNs deposited, which were in his possession before 08.11.2016. The addition made under Section 69A of the Act was found to be unwarranted.

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was a gross violation of natural justice due to insufficient opportunities granted. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Following previous judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and directed them to grant FTC after verifying Form No. 67.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, opining that the assessee had sufficient reason for the belated filing. Considering the circumstances and the fact that the assessment was also a best judgment assessment, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to represent their case.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-response (notices in SPAM) acceptable, as there was no willful omission. The Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(E)'s order and restored the application for reconsideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 143 days considering the medical reasons provided by the assessee. The impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) with all requisite evidence. The appeal was accordingly set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E).

The tribunal held that the NFAC/CIT(A) order was bad in law due to non-application of mind and failure to recognize the prior decision of the Ld.CIT(A) which had allowed the deletion of interest. The principle of finality of litigation and res-judicata were also considered.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10CCB is directory and not mandatory. Since the assessee had filed the form before the completion of assessment proceedings, it constituted sufficient compliance. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her burden to prove the nature and source of the SBNs by showing they were sourced from her earlier withdrawals. The AO's rejection of part of the explanation was based on conjecture and suspicion, without cogent material.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' orders were not speaking orders and lacked proper inquiry. It was decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, who is directed to re-adjudicate the matter after hearing the assessee and passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that when a domestic company distributes dividends to non-resident shareholders, the Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) under Section 115-O of the Act applies at the rate specified in Section 115-O, not the rate in the DTAA applicable to the non-resident shareholder. The decision of the Special Bench in DCIT v. Total Oil India (P) Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are meant to aid justice and not circumvent it. The Ld. CIT(A)'s action of refusing evidence based solely on a procedural technicality was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the nature and source of the Rs. 23,65,000/- deposit as trade receipts, and therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of business income at 8% on the total turnover.