ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal noted that the shareholder's admission of undisclosed income did not adequately consider opening and closing stock, potentially misrepresenting income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the 459-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It noted the assessee's non-participation at both AO and CIT(A) levels, imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the new residential property is in the name of the assessee's husband, especially when the investment originated from the assessee's sale proceeds. Relying on the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT Vs Kamal Wahal and the precedent of the husband's case, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's financial and personal difficulties. Following the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company vs CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to frame a de novo assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on the assessee for non-participation before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned a 344-day delay in filing the appeal due to the tax practitioner's oversight and a new CA discovering the order. Relying on the Tin Box Company case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, providing the assessee a fresh opportunity. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was also levied on the assessee for past negligence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 and had filed Form No. 2 with acknowledgement number 156401721170625 dated 17.06.2025 for AY 2020-21, towards settlement of the pending tax dispute. In view of these facts, the Tribunal found that the appeal filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal also noted that it was open to the assessee to approach the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application if any prejudice was caused concerning the settlement of the tax dispute under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to wait for the decision on the condonation petition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file relevant evidence before the AO for de novo adjudication, after which the AO can proceed with the assessment.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's lack of response, restored the matter to the FAA in the interest of justice and equity. The FAA is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation application, and if accepted, decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's lack of response, restored the matter to the FAA in the interest of justice and equity. The FAA is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation application, and if accepted, decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's lack of response, restored the matter to the FAA in the interest of justice and equity. The FAA is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation application, and if accepted, decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to file relevant evidence, and the CIT(A) is directed to provide a hearing. Failure to substantiate will allow the CIT(A) to proceed as per law.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is directory and not mandatory, especially when filed before the final assessment order. The reasons for the delay in filing Form 67 were found to be genuine.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's lack of response, restored the matter to the FAA in the interest of justice and equity. The FAA is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation application, and if accepted, decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's health reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned a 279-day delay in filing the appeal. It found that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application without providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the show cause notice via email. Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the ex-parte assessment lacked evidence and proper explanation from the assessee. It set aside the appeal and remanded the matter to the Ld. AO for a de novo adjudication regarding the addition under Section 69A, directing the assessee to substantiate its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal partially set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the sustained addition of Rs.6,65,437/- and directed the AO to verify the assessee's explanation with the submitted paper book. If the explanation is found true, the AO is instructed to delete the addition. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's lack of response, restored the matter to the FAA in the interest of justice and equity. The FAA is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation application, and if accepted, decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication of the appeal.

The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) to be a sufficient cause, considering the medical reasons provided. It directed the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restore the appeal for a hearing on merits, conditioned upon the assessee paying Rs.5,000 as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's mental agony due to personal loss and health issues, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the original assessment was ex-parte, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is provided a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that no demand survives after an NCLT approved resolution plan is passed. The CIT(A) had failed to consider the NCLT orders.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was against the order passed under section 143(3) where no fresh additions were made, and thus the contest was ipso facto non-maintainable. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment, as there was no evidence of income from other sources. The Tribunal also adjusted the quantity and valuation of the excess stock.

The Tribunal found that the assessee contended that the deductees had accounted for the receipts and paid tax. Since the Assessing Officer did not have the opportunity to verify this, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The tribunal, following the jurisdictional Madras High Court's decision, held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was invalid as it contravened the e-assessment scheme formulated by the CBDT Notification of 29.03.2022. The impugned notice and consequential orders were set aside, with a provision for revival if the Revenue succeeds before the Apex Court.

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee could not revise the return due to the timeline lapse and that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without sufficient grounds. The Tribunal estimated profits from the sales turnover.

The tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and its affirmation by the Madras High Court, ruled that the Section 148 notice issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order based on this invalid notice was also deemed void ab initio and set aside, although the decision remains subject to any future ruling by the Apex Court in the Hexaware matter.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was operating a single composite educational institution, as evidenced by a single composite license and affiliation certificate showing classes from 1 to 10. Therefore, the total receipts exceeded the Rs.1 crore limit for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).

The Tribunal sustained the lower authorities' orders, finding the assessee consistently failed to provide any supporting evidence for the cash deposits or to challenge the ex-parte orders. It held that Section 80AC correctly applied, mandating return filing under Section 139(1) for claiming beneficial deductions, thereby upholding the disallowance of Section 80P.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions regarding being treated as an AOP under Section 164(2) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to determine net income by considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clear facts, and the assessee's compliance was unsatisfactory. However, to meet the ends of justice, the assessee was given one last opportunity to present their case before the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA No. 1290, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the matter was remitted to the AO for readjudication as per Section 153(2) of the Act. For ITA Nos. 1291 and 1292, the penalty orders were set aside as redundant due to the remission of the assessment order. For ITA No. 1293, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication de novo.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the lower authorities had not objectively analyzed the matter of unexplained cash deposits and their linkage to trade receipts. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the quantum addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148, issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer after the CBDT notification, was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order based on this invalid notice was also set aside.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is subject to the assessee paying ₹.5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues afresh, including specific grounds previously unadjudicated.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. The Ld. AO was directed to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the assessee, who in turn was directed to comply with all statutory notices. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment, as there was no evidence of income from other sources. The Tribunal also adjusted the quantity and valuation of the excess stock.

The Tribunal held that contractual workers engaged by the assessee should be counted towards the minimum of 10 workers required for the deduction. The Tribunal also found that the volume of sales indicated that contractual workers were indeed involved in manufacturing activities.

The Tribunal held that contractual workers engaged by the assessee should be counted towards the minimum of 10 workers required for the deduction. The Tribunal also found that the volume of sales indicated that contractual workers were indeed involved in manufacturing activities.

The tribunal condoned the 217-day delay, finding it neither willful nor wanton. It held that a mere technical mistake in quoting the wrong section should not vitiate the assessee's claim for exemption. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the CIT(E) to readjudicate the matter, allowing the assessee to re-apply with the correct statutory prescriptions.

The Tribunal noted that the orders passed by the AO were not speaking orders and lacked clear facts, with indications of inadequate inquiries. The Tribunal found that inadequate submission of details and evidences were at the core of the controversy.

The Tribunal held that no case for TDS deduction under Section 194J was made out on the clearing/professional charges paid to CCIL. The Tribunal found that the transactions were automatically deducted by CCIL and the assessee had no control over it, thus setting aside the order of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the lower authorities had not objectively analyzed the matter of unexplained cash deposits and their linkage to trade receipts. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the quantum addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no case for TDS deduction under Section 194J was made out on the clearing/professional charges paid to CCIL. The Tribunal found that the transactions were automatically deducted by CCIL and the assessee had no control over it, thus setting aside the order of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the orders passed by the AO were not speaking orders and lacked clear facts, with indications of inadequate inquiries. The Tribunal found that inadequate submission of details and evidences were at the core of the controversy.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA No. 1290, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the matter was remitted to the AO for readjudication as per Section 153(2) of the Act. For ITA Nos. 1291 and 1292, the penalty orders were set aside as redundant due to the remission of the assessment order. For ITA No. 1293, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication de novo.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA No. 1290, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the matter was remitted to the AO for readjudication as per Section 153(2) of the Act. For ITA Nos. 1291 and 1292, the penalty orders were set aside as redundant due to the remission of the assessment order. For ITA No. 1293, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication de novo.