ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 144-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the non-compliance before Ld. CIT(A) was not willful and partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Recognizing the Ld. CIT(A)'s enhancement and the need for the assessee's cooperation on additions under Sections 69A and 80P, the Tribunal remanded the matter for both assessment years back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without admitting them due to delay and lack of supporting documents for health reasons. However, considering the submissions and documentary evidence presented by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits after providing an opportunity for hearing, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond her control and her illiteracy. Granting another opportunity in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, conditional upon the assessee paying ₹10,000/- as cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the CIT(A)'s enhancement of assessment and the need for assessee's input, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, providing another opportunity for the assessee to submit evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation petition and decide the issue afresh. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation for the delay and lack of compliance, attributing it to lack of awareness regarding online notices. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the grounds of appeal on merits and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the AO rejected the assessee's explanation that cash deposits were from sales without proper verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that there is no statutory right of appeal against an order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal filed is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the matters should be remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals on merits. The assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- each to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh on merits.

The Tribunal noted that filing Form 67 is directory in nature and referenced a High Court decision holding the same. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility for foreign tax credit for AY 2021-22 and pass an order accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the AO and CIT(A), and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without considering submissions. The Tribunal set aside both orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. To provide justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10B was still pending for condonation. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of taxing net income after considering depreciation, based on documentary evidence to be filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, subject to costs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons provided (ill health and mental illness) were supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment on extending limitation periods, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal held that the appeal fees paid were correct as per the relevant section when an appeal is dismissed on grounds of non-prosecution or limitation, not on merits. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reason for non-appearance was a sufficient cause. The ex-parte order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a hearing on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the additions, ruling that entries in loose sheets found with a third party, without independent corroborative evidence, cannot be solely relied upon for making additions. It emphasized that the presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C applies only to the searched person and not to a third party (the assessee) without specific proof. The statements of the searched person (Shri Anbu) were general and did not specifically incriminate the assessee, and additional ledgers presented by the Revenue had discrepancies and lacked evidentiary value against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the cash deposit, supported by documentary evidence showing withdrawal of Rs. 18 lakhs on 18.09.2009, was satisfactory and could not be rejected solely due to a time gap.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 78 days and admitted the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal noted that Form 10B was filed within the due date. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the contention and if found true, to allow the capital expenditure as an application of funds towards charitable activities.

The Tribunal noted that two appeals were filed by the assessee against the same impugned order, one manual and one e-filing, creating a duplication. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing (for the first two appeals) and to decide all appeals on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the affidavit stating the auditor's email was hacked. While acknowledging the Revenue's arguments, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, emphasizing natural justice.

The Tribunal held that filing the form under the wrong section was a curable defect and the CIT(E) should have granted an opportunity to rectify it. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to rectify the mistake.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot reassess income that was already subject to an appellate order. Since the honorarium issue was adjudicated in the original assessment and appeal, the reassessment was not permissible.

The Tribunal condoned the 12-day delay, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence explaining the delay and the reasons for ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing, subject to costs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the Covid-19 pandemic period and medical reasons presented by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for denovo hearing on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 12 days, finding sufficient cause. It was held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present all relevant evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, condoning the delay, but subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for de novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order lacked factual findings on key aspects like active/passive rental income, property ownership from inception, and whether the business was part of the trust deed. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application after examining all documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's request for an adjournment before rejecting the application. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to apply their own mind and blindly following the DCIT's letter. Citing the principle of legal finality, as established by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found that the vendor's case had attained finality and similar issues could not be reopened.

The Tribunal held that for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi), the assessee needs to get its accounts audited and furnish the report along with the return of income. Since the assessee filed the return along with the audit report, it complied with the provisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the reasons stated by the assessee were bonafide. The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars had extended the due dates for filing such applications, acknowledging genuine hardship. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that entries in loose sheets seized from a third party, without any corroborative evidence or independent verification, cannot be the sole basis for making additions. The onus is on the Revenue to prove the nexus and the genuineness of such transactions. Mere suspicion or assumptions are insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity of hearing, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, to present their case before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that mere notations in loose sheets seized from a third party, without any corroborative evidence, cannot be relied upon to make additions. The AO failed to establish a nexus or provide tangible evidence to link the notations to the assessee, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the fresh evidence and dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and re-adjudicate the issues.