ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271E for the violation of Section 269T. The Tribunal noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee merely explained its business activity and customer base but did not provide any reasonable cause for violating Section 269T. The assessee did not deny the violation nor pleaded for a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Even before the Tribunal, although the assessee argued that the amounts repaid were not loans or deposits and relied on judicial precedents, no evidence was filed to demonstrate that the amounts repaid were indeed chit bid amounts to successful bidders. Furthermore, no compelling circumstances were shown for repaying such a large sum in cash, otherwise than through prescribed electronic modes. Consequently, the Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the findings of the Learned CIT(A) and held that the assessee's submissions could not be accepted. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was non-compliant before the AO, and the evidence furnished required reconsideration and examination by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee were left open as the issue of JAO/FAO is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. On merits, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was sustained without any change. The Ld. CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for consideration of the assessee's submissions, which the Tribunal found appropriate given the non-compliance and the need for examination of evidence. The Tribunal did not decide the legality of the notice issuance or the procedural lapse of not issuing a Section 143(2) notice, leaving these legal grounds open.

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals representing cash loaded into ATM machines were explained by the assessee through a service agreement, commission schedules, and profit & loss statement, which the AO found satisfactory. Regarding cash deposits of Rs. 15,26,100/-, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed agricultural sales (Rs. 9,75,000/-), a jewel loan (Rs. 2,97,500/-), and gifts (Rs. 4,00,000/-). The AO accepted the jewel loan and partly considered agricultural income. However, the gift component of Rs. 4,00,000/- was unsubstantiated due to lack of gift deeds, affidavits, or donor identity proof. The CIT(A) had allowed 50% of the gift amount. The Tribunal, considering the documents filed by the assessee, found that the CIT(A) rightly pointed out the lack of supporting evidence for gifts and applied the benefit of doubt to consider 50% as genuine. For agricultural income, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's balance sheet showed land holding of Rs. 28.96 lakhs, and Rs. 9.75 lakhs could not be claimed as gross income. After considering expenses of Rs. 5.42 lakhs, only a net amount of Rs. 4.33 lakhs could be considered for income and deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and sustained it. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the 25-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing as the assessee was out of station and unaware of the order. The Tribunal acknowledged that both the assessment and the FAA's order were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was directed to cooperate with the Revenue and furnish all necessary details and evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the validity of the ex-parte order and best judgment assessment, as the matter was being remanded.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 is applicable to the present facts. It reasoned that paragraph 6 of the circular, which deals with the powers of acceptance/rejection within monetary limits delegated to tax authorities for returns claiming refund and supplementary claims, is not independent but must be read with paragraphs 1 to 5. Specifically, clause (ii) of paragraph 6 states that no interest will be admissible on belated claims of refunds. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that clause (ii) is not applicable because the issue does not involve a supplementary claim, holding that clause (ii) applies to any belated claim of refund, as in the present case. Therefore, the denial of interest under Section 244A by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was found to be correct. The Tribunal also found that the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the case of Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the matter requires a revisit by the authorities below. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the Canara Bank statement (Annexure-2), the details of corresponding debit entries in the SBI bank statement against credits reflected in the Canara Bank statement (Annexure-3), and the amount of Rs. 1,08,690/- representing proceeds of a gold loan, for which the source was attempted to be explained and substantiated by the Jewel loan statement and related records (Annexure-6), all require further examination. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to reconsider the assessee's submissions after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant explanations and documents to the AO without seeking adjournments. The Tribunal did not decide the issues on merits but remanded them for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271E for the violation of Section 269T. The Tribunal noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee merely explained its business activity and customer base but did not provide any reasonable cause for violating Section 269T. The assessee did not deny the violation nor pleaded for a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Even before the Tribunal, although the assessee argued that the amounts repaid were not loans or deposits and relied on judicial precedents, no evidence was filed to demonstrate that the amounts repaid were indeed chit bid amounts to successful bidders. Furthermore, no compelling circumstances were shown for repaying such a large sum in cash, otherwise than through prescribed electronic modes. Consequently, the Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the findings of the Learned CIT(A) and held that the assessee's submissions could not be accepted. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 is applicable to the present facts. It reasoned that paragraph 6 of the circular, which deals with the powers of acceptance/rejection within monetary limits delegated to tax authorities for returns claiming refund and supplementary claims, is not independent but must be read with paragraphs 1 to 5. Specifically, clause (ii) of paragraph 6 states that no interest will be admissible on belated claims of refunds. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that clause (ii) is not applicable because the issue does not involve a supplementary claim, holding that clause (ii) applies to any belated claim of refund, as in the present case. Therefore, the denial of interest under Section 244A by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was found to be correct. The Tribunal also found that the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the case of Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(E) required reconsideration both in law and in facts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee trust was formed in 1983 and had been enjoying exemption since inception, with no change in its objects as originally approved by the Revenue. This principle of consistency was considered important. The Tribunal also relied on Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee, which highlighted the trust's activities in scientific research, pollution control, and promotion of sustainable manufacturing processes. The Tribunal observed that these activities clearly fall within the definition of charity as discussed in Section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(E) could not be sustained. The matter was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to rehear the matter after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was directed to participate without seeking adjournments and substantiate its Ground No. 3. The grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only in terms of these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 20,24,618. The delay in filing the return under Section 139(4) and Form No. 67 was considered a procedural lapse. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in *Venkatanarayanan Somayaji Lakshminarasimha v. PCIT* and *Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. Pr. CIT*, which held that Rule 128 is directory in nature and not mandatory, and that delays in filing Form 67 should be condoned in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) to be erroneous. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and direct the CPC, Bengaluru, to accept the assessee's claim for FTC. The delay of 102 days in filing the appeal was also condoned. The Tribunal explicitly stated that there was no challenge to the entitlement or quantum of the FTC claim.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act, dated March 19, 2020, not the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, dated September 12, 2019. This was evidenced by the Form No. 35, which indicated an appeal against the Section 154 order, and the assessee's request for condonation of delay from the date of the Section 154 order, not the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that there was no change in the assessed income in the Section 154 order compared to the Section 144 order. Therefore, the issue of additions made in the assessment order under Section 144 could only be challenged in an appeal filed against that specific order. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) relied on Supreme Court decisions in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust and New Noble Educational Society without adequately considering the specific objects and facts of the assessee's case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) must examine the objects of the trust when determining approval under Section 12AB, and this examination was absent in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a fresh examination by the CIT(E) was required. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. Similarly, the issue regarding Section 80G approval was also remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh examination as it was consequential to the Section 12AB issue. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) relied on Supreme Court decisions in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust and New Noble Educational Society without adequately considering the specific objects and facts of the assessee's case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) must examine the objects of the trust when determining approval under Section 12AB, and this examination was absent in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a fresh examination by the CIT(E) was required. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. Similarly, the issue regarding Section 80G approval was also remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh examination as it was consequential to the Section 12AB issue. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. It held that the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on March 31, 2019, and the audit report in Form 10B was uploaded on December 10, 2019, when the appeal was pending before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The audit report itself was dated June 30, 2018, indicating that the audit was completed well before the due date. The Tribunal noted that the issue was the rejection of exemption under Section 11 for non-filing of the audit report within the due date. Citing various High Court judgments, including Gujarat High Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust Vs. ITO and Commissioner of Income-tax – IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., and the Supreme Court in CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that procedural provisions, such as filing an audit report, are directory and substantial compliance is sufficient. The denial of exemption should not be based solely on a procedural lapse, especially when the audit report was obtained prior to the due date and filed at a later stage before the appellate authority. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant the exemption under Section 11 as claimed by the assessee, as it is registered under Section 12AA of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not explicitly decided but was implicitly addressed by allowing the exemption, which would likely reduce or eliminate the taxable income and thus the interest liability.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the disallowance of expenditure, the Tribunal noted that the AO had disallowed the entire Rs. 2,56,18,186/- expenditure claimed by the assessee for fish net trading, citing lack of supporting bills and vouchers. However, the AO had not provided specific material to prove the expenditure was bogus or for non-business purposes, while the assessee admitted deficiencies in record-keeping. The declared turnover of Rs. 2,62,25,555/- was not disputed. The CIT(A) had estimated the net profit at 5% of the turnover, which resulted in a business income of Rs. 13,11,278/-, sustaining a differential amount of Rs. 3,93,384/-. The Tribunal found this estimation reasonable, based on the assessee's past profit history and the lack of specific material from the Revenue to challenge the basis of estimation or past profit figures. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son, stating that a survey statement alone cannot be the sole basis for an addition. The ground regarding admission of additional evidence was dismissed as the assessee contended no such evidence was filed. The cross-objection filed by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings due to improper approval under Section 151 was dismissed as infructuous, as the assessee stated they were not pressing the grounds if the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, finding good and sufficient reason as the evidence was considered essential for adjudicating the issue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had rejected the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G solely on the ground that the assessee had not responded to notices and failed to submit necessary documents. However, the assessee contended that it had appeared and submitted documents which were not recorded in the impugned order. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remit the entire issue of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G back to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to submit all additional evidence produced before the Tribunal, along with any other required documents, to the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, including the reconstructed books of accounts, which the assessee claimed could substantiate the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal was satisfied with the assessee's reasons for not producing the evidence before the lower authorities, citing a sufficient and reasonable cause (corrupted books of accounts). Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, taking into consideration the additional evidence. All contentions raised by the assessee were left open to be decided by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive issues were not decided on merits at this stage but were to be re-examined by the AO.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, finding good and sufficient reason as the evidence was considered essential for adjudicating the issue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had rejected the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G solely on the ground that the assessee had not responded to notices and failed to submit necessary documents. However, the assessee contended that it had appeared and submitted documents which were not recorded in the impugned order. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remit the entire issue of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G back to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to submit all additional evidence produced before the Tribunal, along with any other required documents, to the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation without discussing any supporting evidence. The assessee had not furnished any evidence to substantiate his claim of acting as an agent for R.M. Associates or confirmation letters stating that funds were provided by R.M. Associates. Furthermore, the assessee had not taken the stand of being an agent for R.M. Associates before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was bereft of any evidence to support the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration by the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the submissions without discussing any evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was not bad in law as the assessment order clearly stated that notice under Section 143(2) was issued and duly served. Therefore, Ground No. 1 was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that in the remand proceedings, the AO accepted the cash sales and the cash balance available prior to demonetization. The AO's analysis in the remand report indicated that the cash sales as a percentage of total sales for the assessee-company lay within comparable limits, with the percentage of cash sales reducing during the relevant period compared to earlier years. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument that cash sales during the demonetization period were lower than in the previous year. Since the AO accepted the cash balance of Rs. 141.49 lakhs and the cash sales in the remand proceedings, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed not justified. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and Ground No. 2 was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 660 days in filing the appeal, accepting the explanation that the delay occurred due to the assessee's demise and the legal heirs' lack of awareness of the proceedings, deeming it a bonafide and reasonable cause. On the merits, the Tribunal considered the solitary issue of whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's explanation for cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently claimed the deposits were from past savings out of withdrawals totaling Rs. 33,42,658/- in the five years preceding demonetization. The Tribunal held that this explanation could not be ruled out without contrary evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 5,86,110/-. Consequently, all grounds of appeal were allowed. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was implicitly decided by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanations for both additions, Rs. 50,00,000/- (gifts and savings) and Rs. 4,00,020/- (immovable property payments), were not accepted by the lower authorities primarily due to a lack of proper supporting evidence. The assessee, through their representative, specifically undertook to furnish relevant confirmations and documentary evidence to substantiate the gifts, the donors' source and creditworthiness, and other amounts in question. In the interest of substantial justice and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored both issues to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence, and the learned CIT(A) is to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's petition under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing the return of income was pending before the PCIT, Madurai. The Tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, which allowed petitions for condonation of delay. Given that the issue before the Tribunal was intrinsically linked to the outcome of the condonation petition, the Tribunal decided to await the PCIT's decision. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) with a direction to consider the assessee's claim afresh after receiving the order from the PCIT on the condonation petition. The JAO was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and then pass an appropriate order. All contentions of the assessee, including its claim for deduction under Section 80P, were kept open for consideration at that stage. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the evidential value of the statement and surrounding circumstances that established the payment of on-money in the transaction. It was also found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the substantial funds routed through the intermediary concern, M/s. Dawn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for land acquisition, and the explanation provided by the assessee remained unsubstantiated. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the non-applicability of Section 50C of the Act would negate an addition under Section 69 of the Act, as these sections operate independently. The CIT(A) had also ignored the corroborative evidentiary value of the bank statements of Shri N. Natarajan, which evidenced cash deposits corresponding to the land transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unjustified and requiring fresh consideration. The matter was remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is not mandatory, citing consistent decisions of the ITAT, Chennai Benches. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the provision is directory. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a fair chance of succeeding on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay of 1482 days and adjudicate the issue on its merits. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Firstly, it condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for both assessment years, finding the assessee's explanation of being unaware of the legal position and gaining knowledge later through employee circulation to be a sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal emphasized that denying substantial justice due to a time lapse from the Tribunal's order to the appeal filing, especially when knowledge was acquired subsequently, would be inappropriate. Secondly, the Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the scheme was formulated pursuant to a Government of India-approved revival package and funded by Government budgetary support, thus partaking in the character of a Government-approved retrenchment compensation scheme. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents, including the Chandigarh Bench's decision in Harish Kumar vs. ITO and other appellate authorities' orders, which consistently held similar compensation as eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The additions made by taxing the ex-gratia compensation were directed to be deleted, and the AO was also directed to grant consequential relief for exemption claimed under Section 10(10AA) if otherwise eligible. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Firstly, it condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for both assessment years, finding the assessee's explanation of being unaware of the legal position and gaining knowledge later through employee circulation to be a sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal emphasized that denying substantial justice due to a time lapse from the Tribunal's order to the appeal filing, especially when knowledge was acquired subsequently, would be inappropriate. Secondly, the Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the scheme was formulated pursuant to a Government of India-approved revival package and funded by Government budgetary support, thus partaking in the character of a Government-approved retrenchment compensation scheme. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents, including the Chandigarh Bench's decision in Harish Kumar vs. ITO and other appellate authorities' orders, which consistently held similar compensation as eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The additions made by taxing the ex-gratia compensation were directed to be deleted, and the AO was also directed to grant consequential relief for exemption claimed under Section 10(10AA) if otherwise eligible. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed the Trust Deed dated 25.09.1995, the Supplementary Deed dated 28.02.1996, a copy of Form 10AB, and earlier registration certificates under Sections 12A/12AB and 80G. In light of these documents, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), Chennai, for reconsideration. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to give a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also advised to be vigilant and cooperative. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only. Consequently, the appeal pertaining to Section 80G approval was also restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision, following the same procedure. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues on merits but remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed the Trust Deed dated 25.09.1995, the Supplementary Deed dated 28.02.1996, a copy of Form 10AB, and earlier registration certificates under Sections 12A/12AB and 80G. In light of these documents, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), Chennai, for reconsideration. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to give a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also advised to be vigilant and cooperative. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only. Consequently, the appeal pertaining to Section 80G approval was also restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision, following the same procedure. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues on merits but remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is in consonance with the plain provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Act. The CIT(A) had rightly set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the penalty as mandated by Section 275(1A), especially since the original assessment order was subject to appeals, and there was no subsisting assessment order until a fresh assessment was completed. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order and therefore did not interfere with it. However, the Tribunal clarified that all contentions raised by the appellant challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) itself are kept open before the Assessing Officer during the re-computation process. The appeal filed by the assessee was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reasoning of the lower authorities that expenditure cannot be allowed in the absence of proportional increase in income is not acceptable, as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes is allowable irrespective of income generation. However, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of expenditure with invoices and mode of payment, which the assessee failed to do. The Tribunal restored Ground No. 1 to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of evidence regarding the incurring of business promotion expenditure, thus partly allowing the ground. For Ground No. II, concerning depreciation on computer software, the Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that educational material created in-house is stored on information storage devices, constituting computer software, and that salaries paid to teachers for its creation were capitalized. This also requires verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Ground No. II was also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for due verification, partly allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Learned CIT(A) was in consonance with the plain provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Act. The CIT(A) had rightly set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-computation of penalty as mandated by Section 275(1A), especially since the original assessment order was set aside in appeal, meaning there was no subsisting assessment order until a fresh assessment was completed. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the Tribunal clarified that all contentions raised by the appellant challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were kept open before the Assessing Officer for consideration during the re-computation. The appeals were dismissed as the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Learned CIT(A) was in consonance with the plain provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Act. The CIT(A) had rightly set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-computation of penalty as mandated by Section 275(1A), especially since the original assessment order was set aside in appeal, meaning there was no subsisting assessment order until a fresh assessment was completed. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the Tribunal clarified that all contentions raised by the appellant challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were kept open before the Assessing Officer for consideration during the re-computation. The appeals were dismissed as the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was valid. The reasons for reopening were based on a statement recorded under oath during a search, which constituted specific and tangible material, not borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal found that the AO had substantially addressed the assessee's objections in a subsequent notice, and this manner of disposal, while not a separate speaking order, did not vitiate the reassessment. Therefore, the legal ground challenging the reopening was dismissed. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order treated the entire Rs. 24 crores as a single addition without engaging with the component of Rs. 4 crores. Consequently, the issue of addition amounting to Rs. 4 crores was restored to the AO for examination, with a direction to consider the bearing of Shri A.K. Khemka's admission regarding receipt of funds in cash and cheque. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of being heard. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to properly consider the material and submissions placed on record by the assessee, particularly the contemporaneous Annual Report for FY 2012-13, which explicitly stated that the first phase of the Bio-Pharma unit had been completed and production had commenced. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion was principally founded on the AO's observations and did not effectively deal with the contrary evidence. The subsequent SARFAESI proceedings could not be used to retrospectively establish that the unit was not operational during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between "setting up" and "commencement" of business and stated that the test for allowability of business expenditure cannot be reduced to whether commercial sales were generated. The blanket disallowance of Rs. 10,70,08,883/- solely on the ground that the Bio-Pharma Division had not commenced commercial production was not sustainable. The Tribunal clarified that each component of the expenditure remains subject to specific statutory conditions. Ground No. 4, concerning a claim under Section 35(2AB), was dismissed as withdrawn. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were allowed to the extent that the disallowance of Rs. 10,70,08,883/- is directed to be deleted, and the impugned order is found to have failed to properly deal with the assessee's material and submissions. Ground No. 6 is consequential.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had indeed enhanced the income of the assessee by adopting the balance 42% without providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its submissions regarding this enhancement. The Tribunal noted that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission and decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case and file supporting evidence before deciding the issue in accordance with the law. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and grounds 2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic but the assessee was granted liberty to raise any legal ground before the first appellate authority upon remand.

The Tribunal held that the shares qualify as a long-term capital asset by including the period of holding of the previous owner, as per Explanation 1(b) to section 2(42A) read with section 49(1) of the Act. However, regarding indexation, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from Manjula J. Shah. It reasoned that while the period of holding is governed by section 49(1), section 49(4) creates a separate statutory cost of acquisition based on the value taxed under section 56(2)(x), which came into existence on March 24, 2021. Therefore, indexation cannot be computed from the year the previous owner first held the asset. Instead, indexation should be computed with reference to the cost inflation index for the financial year 2020-21, corresponding to the value brought to tax under section 56(2)(x) on March 24, 2021. The AO was directed to recompute capital gains accordingly. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had only a right to seek specific performance of the agreement, not the land itself, as no sale deed was registered and the vendor remained the owner. This right to specific performance is a capital asset, and its extinguishment is a transfer under Section 2(47). However, Section 50C is applicable only to the transfer of 'land or building or both' and cannot be extended to the transfer of a right in land or building. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Vidarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. (supra) as it involved a registered leasehold interest, unlike the assessee's bare contractual right. Therefore, Section 50C was not applicable. The AO was not justified in invoking Section 50C for recomputing LTCG. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The issues regarding the bifurcation of consideration and the variance within the tolerance band were subsumed. The contention that no transfer occurred in the year under consideration was left open as the assessee succeeded on the Section 50C issue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act was valid. The reasons recorded were based on a statement under oath from Shri A.K. Khemka, which constituted specific and tangible material, not borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also found that while the disposal of objections might not have been a separate speaking order, the AO did address them in a subsequent notice, and this did not vitiate the reassessment as the reasons recorded independently justified the jurisdiction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision upholding the reopening was affirmed. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted explanations for Rs.16 crores (via IDS, 2016) and Rs.1 crore (by Shri Arvind Gupta). However, the remaining Rs.7 crores were not fully addressed by the CIT(A) in relation to the AO's assessment order, which treated the entire Rs.24 crores as a single addition. The Tribunal restored the issue of addition amounting to Rs.4 crores (part of the Rs.7 crores) to the file of the AO for examination, considering Shri A.K. Khemka's admission regarding receipt of funds. The judgment does not specify the treatment of the remaining Rs.3 crores from the Rs.7 crores.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of familiarity with e-filing and e-assessment, the demise of his tax consultant, and the death of his father due to Covid-19, which caused significant disruption. It was also observed that the FAA had issued notices on merits to which the assessee responded, but no specific deficiency notice was issued regarding the delay before dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 723 and 547 days in the interest of justice and fair play. Furthermore, acknowledging that the reassessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte due to the same reasons, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid within one month. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of familiarity with e-filing and e-assessment, the demise of his tax consultant, and the death of his father due to Covid-19, which caused significant disruption. It was also observed that the FAA had issued notices on merits to which the assessee responded, but no specific deficiency notice was issued regarding the delay before dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 723 and 547 days in the interest of justice and fair play. Furthermore, acknowledging that the reassessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte due to the same reasons, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid within one month. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, having heard both parties and perused the record, found it proper to remand the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted the undertaking given by the Ld. AR. The assessee was directed to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail and was at liberty to file evidence in support of its claim. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific issue of whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without an opportunity was implicitly addressed by setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, having heard both parties and perused the record, found it proper to remand the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted the undertaking given by the Ld. AR. The assessee was directed to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail and was at liberty to file evidence in support of its claim. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific issue of whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without an opportunity was implicitly addressed by setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had rejected the assessee's application solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No.10AB. However, CBDT Circular No.06/2026, dated 02.07.2026, specifically provides that delays in furnishing Form No.10AB electronically between 01.10.2025 and 31.03.2026, beyond the due date of 30.09.2025, shall be condoned, subject to stipulated conditions. Crucially, paragraph 4 of the Circular addresses applications already rejected solely on the ground of such delay, stating that the delay shall be deemed condoned and the application shall be disposed of on merits. Given this subsequent development, the Tribunal concluded that the matter required reconsideration by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Commissioner for disposal on merits in accordance with law and CBDT Circular No.06/2026, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT, considering the submissions of both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR, and in the interest of justice, decided to accept the assessee's prayer. The Tribunal acknowledged the material evidence at page numbers 46 and 47. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file any further evidence in support of their claim. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT did not decide on the merits of the original appeal before the CIT(A), as the primary issue was the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the order under consideration was passed in an ex-parte manner due to a communication gap between the office of the Ld. CIT(E) and the assessee, specifically because the show cause notice was sent to a wrong email ID. The Tribunal found that there was no effective service of the SCN as per the provisions of section 282 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the office of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the application after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and participate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only. The ITAT did not decide on the merits of the application for registration itself.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10AB, considering the affidavit and application filed by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to grant approval to the assessee with effect from September 30, 2025, which was the date the application was filed. The grounds raised by the assessee were considered partly allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the matter was disposed of in an ex-parte manner by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), Chennai, for reconsideration. The assessee was directed to provide the relevant documents and cooperate with the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that its endeavor is always to adjudicate matters on a substantive basis. In view of these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, with condonation of delay based on an affidavit and application filed before the Tribunal.