Loading ITAT cases…
301 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years, finding the reasons stated by the Revenue to be bonafide. For AY 2020-21 (lead case), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 5% was justified. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had considered the additional income offered by the assessee and the specific disallowances sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. This finding was applied equally to AYs 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, as the facts and issues were similar. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2023-24, the CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,10,47,300 towards purchases and Rs. 3,15,63,806 towards subcontract expenditure, aggregating to Rs. 4,26,11,106, and deleted the balance additions, which was not disputed by either party. The ratio decidendi is that when the CIT(A) has provided a reasoned order restricting disallowances based on accepted principles and evidence, and such findings are not disputed by either party, the Tribunal should uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Act is applicable only to the person searched and cannot be applied to a third party. The seized notebook was not prepared by the assessee but by someone at the premises of the Saravana Group, an external party. This fact is critical as it undermines the presumption under Section 132(4A), which applies to documents found to 'belong to' the person searched. The presumption under Section 132(4A) is limited and rebuttable, and cannot, by itself, revoke a preposition against a third party for chargeability of tax. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the legal position in favour of the assessee, finding the Revenue's reliance on the jurisdictional High Court decision inapplicable. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years, finding the reasons stated by the Revenue to be bonafide. For AY 2020-21 (lead case), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 5% was justified. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had considered the additional income offered by the assessee and the specific disallowances sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. This finding was applied equally to AYs 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, as the facts and issues were similar. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2023-24, the CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,10,47,300 towards purchases and Rs. 3,15,63,806 towards subcontract expenditure, aggregating to Rs. 4,26,11,106, and deleted the balance additions, which was not disputed by either party. The ratio decidendi is that when the CIT(A) has provided a reasoned order restricting disallowances based on accepted principles and evidence, and such findings are not disputed by either party, the Tribunal should uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years, finding the reasons stated by the Revenue to be bonafide. For AY 2020-21 (lead case), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 5% was justified. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had considered the additional income offered by the assessee and the specific disallowances sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. This finding was applied equally to AYs 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, as the facts and issues were similar. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2023-24, the CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,10,47,300 towards purchases and Rs. 3,15,63,806 towards subcontract expenditure, aggregating to Rs. 4,26,11,106, and deleted the balance additions, which was not disputed by either party. The ratio decidendi is that when the CIT(A) has provided a reasoned order restricting disallowances based on accepted principles and evidence, and such findings are not disputed by either party, the Tribunal should uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the AO himself agreed that the assessee was involved in the money lending business, a fact also confirmed by the assessee in his statement under Section 131. The seized red notebooks contained details of money lending business transactions. The assessee admitted advancing cash loans to Shri Amit Kothari for the money lending business and voluntarily disclosed a sum of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The AO prepared a table showing interest received by the assessee from FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22 amounting to Rs. 1,92,70,203/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared income under the head 'business' and the AO did not bring any new material to justify treating it as unexplained investment. Relying on the decision in O. Rm. Sp. Sv. Firm v. CIT, the Tribunal held that income falling under a specific head cannot be taxed under another head. The CIT(A) was justified in accepting the assessee's claim as the AO relied on materials except the assessee's claim about the head of income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years, finding the reasons stated by the Revenue to be bonafide. For AY 2020-21 (lead case), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 5% was justified. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had considered the additional income offered by the assessee and the specific disallowances sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. This finding was applied equally to AYs 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, as the facts and issues were similar. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2023-24, the CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,10,47,300 towards purchases and Rs. 3,15,63,806 towards subcontract expenditure, aggregating to Rs. 4,26,11,106, and deleted the balance additions, which was not disputed by either party. The ratio decidendi is that when the CIT(A) has provided a reasoned order restricting disallowances based on accepted principles and evidence, and such findings are not disputed by either party, the Tribunal should uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years, finding the reasons stated by the Revenue to be bonafide. For AY 2020-21 (lead case), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 5% was justified. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had considered the additional income offered by the assessee and the specific disallowances sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. This finding was applied equally to AYs 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, as the facts and issues were similar. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2023-24, the CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,10,47,300 towards purchases and Rs. 3,15,63,806 towards subcontract expenditure, aggregating to Rs. 4,26,11,106, and deleted the balance additions, which was not disputed by either party. The ratio decidendi is that when the CIT(A) has provided a reasoned order restricting disallowances based on accepted principles and evidence, and such findings are not disputed by either party, the Tribunal should uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years, finding the reasons stated by the Revenue to be bonafide. For AY 2020-21 (lead case), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 5% was justified. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had considered the additional income offered by the assessee and the specific disallowances sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. This finding was applied equally to AYs 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, as the facts and issues were similar. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2023-24, the CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,10,47,300 towards purchases and Rs. 3,15,63,806 towards subcontract expenditure, aggregating to Rs. 4,26,11,106, and deleted the balance additions, which was not disputed by either party. The ratio decidendi is that when the CIT(A) has provided a reasoned order restricting disallowances based on accepted principles and evidence, and such findings are not disputed by either party, the Tribunal should uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the appeals had become infructuous due to the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT on February 3, 2023, and the subsequent reduction of the tax demand for all years to nil on April 10, 2024. Consequently, the assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were considered concluded under the plan, and no effective relief could be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that any adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised would be purely academic. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions and that this order would not preclude the assessee from pursuing reliefs before the CBDT or other appropriate authorities as referred by the NCLT. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's grievance regarding tax determined had ceased to exist, and the claims for refunds and creation of losses fell outside the scope of the appeals and the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the activities of the trust fall within the expression "relief of the poor" as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. The trust's activities, such as motivating poor and marginalized women to form SHGs, nurturing them, educating them on financial literacy, and facilitating access to bank credit, are directed at improving their economic condition. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15), including the 20% receipt limit, is not attracted. The Tribunal further held that even if the activities were viewed under the residuary limb of general public utility, they are not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the Tribunal noted that charging amounts at cost or with a nominal mark-up does not constitute business. The trust's deficit in FY 2021-22 and marginal surpluses in subsequent years, along with the fact that it does not charge beneficiaries, support this finding. The Tribunal found no material to show that service charges were significantly in excess of costs or that income was applied for trustees' benefit. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration under Section 12AB from AY 2027-28. The Revenue was granted liberty to examine income application in assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the matter required fresh examination at the level of the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal admitted the MOU dated 01.01.2022 as additional evidence. It observed that the AO and CIT(A) had not independently examined the nature of the transaction and had restricted TDS credit solely based on income offered in the return. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee's plea under Section 47(v) is accepted, the tax deducted would be excess tax, entitling the assessee to a refund under Section 237. Conversely, if any part of the receipt is found to be chargeable to tax, credit for the corresponding TDS would be given. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO with directions to examine the applicability of Section 47(v), verify the TDS deduction and deposit, reconcile the shortfall in credit, and allow TDS credit in accordance with law. The AO was also directed to recompute consequential interest and pass a speaking order. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicability of Section 47(v) or the taxability of the receipt.
The Tribunal held that the appeals had become infructuous due to the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT on February 3, 2023, and the subsequent reduction of the tax demand for all years to nil on April 10, 2024. Consequently, the assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were considered concluded under the plan, and no effective relief could be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that any adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised would be purely academic. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions and that this order would not preclude the assessee from pursuing reliefs before the CBDT or other appropriate authorities as referred by the NCLT. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's grievance regarding tax determined had ceased to exist, and the claims for refunds and creation of losses fell outside the scope of the appeals and the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of explaining the nature and source of investments through documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds, sale agreements, bank statements, ledger accounts, and confirmations. The Tribunal noted that the identity of persons concerned, genuineness of transactions, and nature/source of investments were not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not adequately rebutted the explanation furnished by the assessee and had not brought any cogent material to discredit the explanation or establish that the investments represented unexplained income. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not made further inquiries, such as issuing summons under Section 131, despite the material furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the CIT(A) had correctly excluded an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- pertaining to FY 2011-12. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,95,98,160/- and directed the AO to delete the said addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and no compliance was made despite four notices issued. However, considering the undertaking given by the assessee's authorized representative to furnish all details and represent the case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claims. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle is that where an assessee undertakes to provide all necessary documentation and representation, and the revenue has no objection, a procedural lapse leading to an ex parte order can be rectified by remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals had become infructuous due to the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT on February 3, 2023, and the subsequent reduction of the tax demand for all years to nil on April 10, 2024. Consequently, the assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were considered concluded under the plan, and no effective relief could be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that any adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised would be purely academic. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions and that this order would not preclude the assessee from pursuing reliefs before the CBDT or other appropriate authorities as referred by the NCLT. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's grievance regarding tax determined had ceased to exist, and the claims for refunds and creation of losses fell outside the scope of the appeals and the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1065 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sole reason, the Covid-19 Pandemic, was not applicable to the assessment year and the period of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that while a liberal and justice-oriented approach is sometimes adopted, it should not be used to disregard the substantial law of limitation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah, the Tribunal stated that reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, condoning the delay would amount to violating statutory provisions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s rejection of the condonation petition. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the CIT(A)'s order on this point were dismissed, rendering the grounds on merits infructuous.
The Tribunal found the reasons explained by the assessee for the 87-day delay to be satisfactory. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown sufficient cause that prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time, a fact that the CIT(A) had overlooked. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay, condone the delay, and then adjudicate the issues raised in Form No. 35 on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file any further evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 953 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide and preventing timely filing. Regarding the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation of a serious accident on 5.12.2019, 70% disability, and lack of financial support. The Tribunal found these reasons reasonable and likely to have prevented timely filing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay and for adjudication of the issues on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeals had become infructuous due to the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT on February 3, 2023, and the subsequent reduction of the tax demand for all years to nil on April 10, 2024. Consequently, the assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were considered concluded under the plan, and no effective relief could be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that any adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised would be purely academic. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions and that this order would not preclude the assessee from pursuing reliefs before the CBDT or other appropriate authorities as referred by the NCLT. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's grievance regarding tax determined had ceased to exist, and the claims for refunds and creation of losses fell outside the scope of the appeals and the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in observing that he could not legislate or extend due dates beyond the Act's provisions, the core issue was not about extending the due date but about whether the assessee could be considered in default for the period during which the CBDT itself acknowledged difficulties in filing. The Tribunal noted that the TDS and TCS statements for the fourth quarter of FY 2020-21 are of the same character, relate to the same period, are filed on the same portal, and governed by Section 234E. The hardship caused by lockdowns, which led to CBDT extensions for TDS statements, applied equally to TCS statements. The extension granted for TDS statements until July 15, 2021, was a clear recognition by the CBDT that filing such statements could not reasonably be insisted upon during that period. Therefore, levying a fee on the assessee for the same period, merely because it was a TCS statement, would result in unequal treatment. The Tribunal ruled that, on the peculiar facts, the period from May 16, 2021, to July 15, 2021, should be excluded in computing the fee under Section 234E. The AO was directed to delete the fee of Rs. 12,200 for this period and recompute the demand. The fee for the undisputed period of delay was to stand.
The Tribunal, considering the concession made by the Revenue regarding the discrepancy in dates and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the issue of delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The assessee is permitted to submit evidence supporting the reasons for the delay and the merits of the application. The Ld. CIT(E) is to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, considering the reasons for delay and, if delay is condoned, decide the grant of registration on merits. The ratio decidendi is that procedural irregularities and factual discrepancies, especially when conceded by the revenue, warrant a remand for fresh consideration to ensure justice and proper adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bona fide. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings. The assessee undertook to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claim. The Tribunal directed that if the assessee fails to represent its case, the Ld. CIT(A) may pass an order based on available material. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, it was proper to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was granted liberty to file any evidence in support of their claim. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee fails to appear before the first appellate authority but expresses willingness to furnish details, and the Revenue has no objection, a remand for fresh consideration is appropriate to ensure justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not established a sustainable legal basis for annulling the consequential assessment passed under Section 153A read with Section 263, as there was no material demonstrating that the revision order under Section 263 had ceased to operate. The Tribunal found that the warrant of authorization, panchanama, seized Tally entries, Annexure III, and corroborative statements provided an evidentiary basis for the impugned addition. The addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- was supported by material found during the search and was not liable to be deleted simply because the assessment year was unabated. The assessee failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash credits. The Tribunal also held that the assessee had not established the requisite nexus between the impugned cash receipts and the additional income considered in settlement proceedings to warrant telescoping. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on decisions like Abhisar Buildwell and Ajitabh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- under Section 68 was upheld, and both grounds of appeal were dismissed. The appeals for AY 2016-17 in ITA Nos. 3320, 3321, and 3322/Chny/2025 were also dismissed, applying the findings from the lead case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not established a sustainable legal basis for annulling the consequential assessment passed under Section 153A read with Section 263, as there was no material demonstrating that the revision order under Section 263 had ceased to operate. The Tribunal found that the warrant of authorization, panchanama, seized Tally entries, Annexure III, and corroborative statements provided an evidentiary basis for the impugned addition. The addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- was supported by material found during the search and was not liable to be deleted simply because the assessment year was unabated. The assessee failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash credits. The Tribunal also held that the assessee had not established the requisite nexus between the impugned cash receipts and the additional income considered in settlement proceedings to warrant telescoping. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on decisions like Abhisar Buildwell and Ajitabh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- under Section 68 was upheld, and both grounds of appeal were dismissed. The appeals for AY 2016-17 in ITA Nos. 3320, 3321, and 3322/Chny/2025 were also dismissed, applying the findings from the lead case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not established a sustainable legal basis for annulling the consequential assessment passed under Section 153A read with Section 263, as there was no material demonstrating that the revision order under Section 263 had ceased to operate. The Tribunal found that the warrant of authorization, panchanama, seized Tally entries, Annexure III, and corroborative statements provided an evidentiary basis for the impugned addition. The addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- was supported by material found during the search and was not liable to be deleted simply because the assessment year was unabated. The assessee failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash credits. The Tribunal also held that the assessee had not established the requisite nexus between the impugned cash receipts and the additional income considered in settlement proceedings to warrant telescoping. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on decisions like Abhisar Buildwell and Ajitabh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- under Section 68 was upheld, and both grounds of appeal were dismissed. The appeals for AY 2016-17 in ITA Nos. 3320, 3321, and 3322/Chny/2025 were also dismissed, applying the findings from the lead case.
The Tribunal noted that the figures of turnover and the liability to get accounts audited under Section 44AB were not under challenge. The sole issue was the applicability of Section 273B, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The Tribunal referred to judicial decisions, including the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in P. Senthil Kumar v. PCIT, which held that penalty can be waived if reasonable cause is demonstrated. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's submissions formed a reasonable cause for the purposes of Section 273B, but these submissions were not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO with a direction to examine the assessee's case in light of Section 273B, providing an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and cooperative, providing relevant evidence to establish a bonafide and reasonable cause. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not established a sustainable legal basis for annulling the consequential assessment passed under Section 153A read with Section 263, as there was no material demonstrating that the revision order under Section 263 had ceased to operate. The Tribunal found that the warrant of authorization, panchanama, seized Tally entries, Annexure III, and corroborative statements provided an evidentiary basis for the impugned addition. The addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- was supported by material found during the search and was not liable to be deleted simply because the assessment year was unabated. The assessee failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash credits. The Tribunal also held that the assessee had not established the requisite nexus between the impugned cash receipts and the additional income considered in settlement proceedings to warrant telescoping. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on decisions like Abhisar Buildwell and Ajitabh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- under Section 68 was upheld, and both grounds of appeal were dismissed. The appeals for AY 2016-17 in ITA Nos. 3320, 3321, and 3322/Chny/2025 were also dismissed, applying the findings from the lead case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This decision was made despite the assessee's consistent non-compliance before both the AO and the CIT(A). The remand was granted on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The assessee also provided an undertaking to represent the case before the CIT(A) without fail. If the assessee fails to appear, the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an order based on the available material. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 223 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued six notices to the assessee, but there was no compliance. Despite this, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of their claim. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio decidendi is that even in cases of non-compliance, a remand may be granted in the interest of justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case, especially when the revenue does not object.
The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act merged with the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act dated February 27, 2026. In this scrutiny assessment order, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income of the assessee without any disallowance or addition, thereby allowing the exemption claimed under Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act. Consequently, the assessee had no grievance left as its total income was assessed at NIL with no tax liability. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. The grounds raised by the assessee were also dismissed as they became infructuous in light of the scrutiny assessment order.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and genuinely preventing timely filing. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that due to the complete lack of compliance by the assessee before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), it was in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence for their claims. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle established is that while non-compliance is a serious issue, a remand may be granted in the interest of justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case with evidence, especially when the delay is condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO under Section 148 and Section 142(1), nor responded to show cause notices. It was also evident from the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee had failed to comply with five notices issued during the first appellate proceedings. Accepting the Revenue's submission, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to raise any available legal grounds and file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of limitation on merits.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 973 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of their claim and raise legal grounds. The reasoning was based on considering the submissions of both parties and the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 71 days in filing both appeals, finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bonafide. For ITA No. 4307/Chny/2026, the Tribunal noted that the application for approval under Section 12AB was rejected as the required documents were not furnished, leading to no representation before the CIT(E). However, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) with a condition of paying Rs. 5,000/- cost to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The CIT(E) was directed to process the application upon satisfaction of the cost payment, and the assessee was permitted to file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, for ITA No. 4308/Chny/2026, the Tribunal, having decided to remand the other appeal, deemed it proper to remand the application for registration under Section 80G to the CIT(E) as well, allowing the assessee to file evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) against a notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not maintainable. The reasoning provided is that a notice under Section 143(2) does not fall within the ambit of appealable orders as enumerated in Section 246A of the Act. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which had dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. The grounds raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 were accordingly dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the return filed in ITR No. 7 was a defective return under Section 139(9) due to the apparent mismatch with the prescribed form. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to accept the correct return in ITR No. 5. It was also held that a technical glitch regarding the Tax Audit Report in Form No. 10B should not be fatal to the exemption claim. Regarding the late filing of the return, the Tribunal directed the assessee to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) before the prescribed authority for condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the exemption is to be restored. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had incurred a deficit of Rs. 82,21,859/- (expenditure of Rs. 3,73,96,149/- against receipts of Rs. 2,91,74,290/-). Therefore, even if exemption was denied, only the real accounting surplus/deficit should be considered, not the entire gross receipt. The CPC was directed to consider this deficit along with any order of delay condonation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 71 days in filing both appeals, finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bonafide. For ITA No. 4307/Chny/2026, the Tribunal noted that the application for approval under Section 12AB was rejected as the required documents were not furnished, leading to no representation before the CIT(E). However, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) with a condition of paying Rs. 5,000/- cost to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The CIT(E) was directed to process the application upon satisfaction of the cost payment, and the assessee was permitted to file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, for ITA No. 4308/Chny/2026, the Tribunal, having decided to remand the other appeal, deemed it proper to remand the application for registration under Section 80G to the CIT(E) as well, allowing the assessee to file evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the sale deed for the immovable property was executed on 25th October 2013, for a consideration of Rs.45,63,000/-, meaning the transfer of property occurred during the previous year relevant to AY 2014-15. Even if the addition made for AY 2013-14 on account of unexplained investments was considered as the sale consideration received, the gains arising from the sale are taxable in AY 2014-15. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in ITO Vs. Ch.Atchaiah, which held that income should be taxed in the right year, and the Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person even if a wrong person was taxed previously. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention that the gains were already taxed in AY 2013-14 and settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, as it was not evident from the records that the gains were taxed as part of undisclosed investment in AY 2013-14. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable when the additions made in the quantum proceedings were on an estimated basis. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted the addition made under Section 69C and directed the computation of income on an estimated basis at 5%. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty on this estimated income. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled in favour of the assessee, citing decisions from the Hon'ble Apex Court, Jurisdictional High Court, and Bombay High Court, including Pr. CIT v. Elcon Pipe and Fittings (P.) Ltd. [2026] 187 taxmann.com 886 (Bom.), which held that penalty cannot be imposed when additions are sustained purely on an estimate or guesswork. The Tribunal also followed decisions of coordinate benches regarding penalty on additions on account of income from house property. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable when the additions made in the quantum proceedings were on an estimated basis. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted the addition made under Section 69C and directed the computation of income on an estimated basis at 5%. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty on this estimated income. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled in favour of the assessee, citing decisions from the Hon'ble Apex Court, Jurisdictional High Court, and Bombay High Court, including Pr. CIT v. Elcon Pipe and Fittings (P.) Ltd. [2026] 187 taxmann.com 886 (Bom.), which held that penalty cannot be imposed when additions are sustained purely on an estimate or guesswork. The Tribunal also followed decisions of coordinate benches regarding penalty on additions on account of income from house property. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable when the additions made in the quantum proceedings were on an estimated basis. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted the addition made under Section 69C and directed the computation of income on an estimated basis at 5%. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty on this estimated income. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled in favour of the assessee, citing decisions from the Hon'ble Apex Court, Jurisdictional High Court, and Bombay High Court, including Pr. CIT v. Elcon Pipe and Fittings (P.) Ltd. [2026] 187 taxmann.com 886 (Bom.), which held that penalty cannot be imposed when additions are sustained purely on an estimate or guesswork. The Tribunal also followed decisions of coordinate benches regarding penalty on additions on account of income from house property. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable when the additions made in the quantum proceedings were on an estimated basis. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted the addition made under Section 69C and directed the computation of income on an estimated basis at 5%. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty on this estimated income. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled in favour of the assessee, citing decisions from the Hon'ble Apex Court, Jurisdictional High Court, and Bombay High Court, including Pr. CIT v. Elcon Pipe and Fittings (P.) Ltd. [2026] 187 taxmann.com 886 (Bom.), which held that penalty cannot be imposed when additions are sustained purely on an estimate or guesswork. The Tribunal also followed decisions of coordinate benches regarding penalty on additions on account of income from house property. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the delays and lack of participation by the assessee before the lower authorities, decided to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Tribunal noted that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were largely ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. The Tribunal considered the additional evidence to have a substantial bearing on the adjudication of the tax liability. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes only. The matter was restored back to the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidence adduced by the assessee, after providing a proper opportunity of being heard as per section 282. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant, cooperate with the AO, and provide all relevant evidence without seeking adjournments, substantiating each entry in the bank statement. The Tribunal did not comment on the grounds raised by the assessee but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to ensure a substantive adjudication of the tax liability. The decision in ITA No. 3163/Chny/2026 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 3164/Chny/2026.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the delays and lack of participation by the assessee before the lower authorities, decided to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Tribunal noted that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were largely ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. The Tribunal considered the additional evidence to have a substantial bearing on the adjudication of the tax liability. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes only. The matter was restored back to the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidence adduced by the assessee, after providing a proper opportunity of being heard as per section 282. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant, cooperate with the AO, and provide all relevant evidence without seeking adjournments, substantiating each entry in the bank statement. The Tribunal did not comment on the grounds raised by the assessee but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to ensure a substantive adjudication of the tax liability. The decision in ITA No. 3163/Chny/2026 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 3164/Chny/2026.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below had ignored certain facts that had a bearing on the issue. Specifically, while the assessee provided a receipt of Rs. 7 Lacs from Shri R. Manikandan, the receipt did not specify the date and mode of payment. Furthermore, no independent evidence like a registered sale agreement, bank trail, or buyer's confirmation specifying the date and mode of payment was furnished to establish that the amount was received on or before June 5, 2018 (the date of cash deposit). The Tribunal noted a document on page 20 of the Paper Book, which was a receipt issued by Mr. R. Manikandan for Rs. 7 Lacs, dated April 5, 2018, and a corresponding entry dated August 24, 2018, by the assessee, along with Mr. Manikandan's Aadhar Card. In view of these facts, to ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for reconsideration. The AO was directed to re-examine the available documents and potentially seek further relevant documents from the assessee, providing a fresh opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and cooperative. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been enjoying registration under Section 12A for over 10 years, and its charitable objects and activities had been accepted by the Department. The application under Section 12AB was for continuation of an existing registration, not for a new one. The Tribunal found no change in the assessee's objects or activities. The rejection of registration merely because the trust operates a common effluent treatment facility for leather industries was considered arbitrary and inconsistent with the statutory framework and prior departmental acceptance. The Tribunal relied on the principle of consistency and the fact that the assessee's operations were never under challenge, even after the insertion of Section 2(15). The Tribunal implicitly found that the assessee's activities, despite commercial elements, continued to serve charitable purposes in the context of environmental protection and had been recognized as such for a prolonged period.
The Tribunal noted that the primary reason for reopening the case by the AO was the difference in registry value versus the value adopted by the sub-registrar. The judgment does not record the Tribunal's final decision on the grounds raised by the assessee or the specific findings of the Tribunal on each issue. The operative part of the order, including any relief granted or directions issued, is not detailed in the provided text. The Tribunal's ultimate decision on the appeal is not discernible from the excerpt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the NFAC was not adjudicated on its substantive merits but was dismissed in limine due to the delay in filing. After reviewing the submissions made by the assessee before the NFAC, the Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay to be reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the NFAC. The direction was for the NFAC to condone the delay, subject to the assessee filing a condonation application, and to rehear the appeal after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, in terms of Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and cooperative before the NFAC. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only. The Tribunal made no comment on the legality or merits of the case, leaving the substantive issues undecided at this stage.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent before the Assessing Officer (AO). The judgment records that the assessee submitted a Registration Certificate issued by the Dy. Registrar. However, the Tribunal's decision on the grounds of appeal is not fully recorded in the provided text. The provided text ends abruptly after mentioning the assessee's submission of a registration certificate. Therefore, the specific findings on the issues raised by the Revenue, the reasoning, and the operative directions are not ascertainable from the excerpt. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the decision on the presented grounds is incomplete.