ITAT Cochin Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence for the medical condition claimed for the entire delay period, noting that medical prescriptions did not advise complete bed rest for the relevant limitation period. The claim regarding the tax consultant's oversight was dismissed due to the absence of a supporting affidavit or a complaint against the consultant. Citing Apex Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not constitute a "reasonable cause" for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient, noting the assessee was not on complete bed rest for the entire critical period and no affidavit supported the tax consultant's alleged oversight. Citing Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay, the Tribunal concluded there was no "reasonable cause" for the delay and dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment and the consequential addition were bad in law.

The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence for continuous medical incapacitation and noted the absence of an affidavit from the tax consultant. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not constitute a "reasonable cause" for condoning the significant delay, and thus dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal ruled that profits from charitable fundraising activities (curries) were eligible for Section 11 exemption and that Form 10 for Section 11(2) accumulation does not require specific object details. It remanded the case to the AO for re-verification of other Section 11 exemption conditions, partly allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to examine the issue afresh, specifically considering the period of investments vis-à-vis the additions under Section 69 of the Act, and afford the assessee a meaningful opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income. Citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment and the subsequent assessment were bad in law, thereby allowing the appeals.

The ITAT held that the death of the auditor constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The tribunal condoned the 338-day delay and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A), directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing a meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were invalid, as they were based on a mere 'change of opinion' without any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income. Citing *CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.*, the Tribunal held that both the reassessment proceedings and the subsequent assessment were bad in law. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a mere change of opinion, without any fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income. Applying the ratio of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment were bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the appeals did not involve organized tax evasion, bogus capital gains/losses, or accommodation entries, making the exceptions under CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 inapplicable. The argument regarding cascading effect was also rejected. Consequently, in light of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 and the tax effect being below Rs. 60 lakhs, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, with the issues raised left open for future appropriate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that profits from curries conducted for charitable activities were eligible for Section 11 exemption, and accumulated income under Section 11(2) cannot be taxed merely because Form 10 did not specify a particular object. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify other conditions for Section 11 exemption.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the reason for the delay, i.e., the merger and account migration, did not constitute a 'reasonable cause' for condonation. Citing Apex Court precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the power to condone delay cannot be exercised to frustrate the substantial law of limitation, and a liberal approach is not warranted in cases where negligence is attributable to the appellant.

The tribunal held that the cases did not fall under the exception clause (h) for organized tax evasion or related matters, nor did the issue of additions under Section 68/69 prevent the circular's application as it was a mixed question of facts and law. Consequently, as the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable, with the issues left open for future appropriate proceedings if exceptions later applied.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, while granting the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if their application under the DTVSV is rejected for any reason.

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to judiciously consider the documentary evidence. Thus, the matter was remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh examination, with directions to provide the assessee a meaningful opportunity of being heard before passing any order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide meaningful opportunities to the assessee, particularly concerning the virtual hearing request, before passing any order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, ruling that the cases did not fall under the organized tax evasion exceptions of CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. It also held that the Surya Herbal Ltd. judgment was not applicable as the appeals involved additions under Sections 68/69, which are mixed questions of fact and law. The issues raised were left open for examination in future appropriate proceedings if exceptions were applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed both the original and a duplicate appeal on the grounds of limitation. It held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the 125-day delay were too general and did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay, citing a previous High Court ruling.

The Tribunal found that the AO granted insufficient time for the assessee to explain the source of credits and that notices issued by CIT(A) via ITBA Portal were not valid. It remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination on merits, instructing to provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing and noting that no addition is warranted if credits sufficiently cover withdrawals.

The Tribunal ruled that the cases did not involve organised tax evasion or fall under other exceptions of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, nor did the Surya Herbal Ltd. judgment apply as the additions under Section 68/69 involved mixed questions of fact and law. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, leaving the issues open for future proceedings if exceptions arise.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to demonstrate a clear nexus between the seized material from the third-party search and the appellant's undisclosed income. It held that mere disclosure of additional income in response to a Section 153C notice does not automatically prove concealment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the AO had thoroughly examined the issue of accumulated surplus utilization during the original assessment and took a plausible view. Since no error was demonstrated in the AO's view, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the tax effect was below the Rs. 60 lakh threshold per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. It ruled that the exceptions concerning organised tax evasion (bogus capital gains, accommodation entries) under CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 were not applicable, as the case involved additions under Section 68/69, which is a mixed question of fact and law.

The Tribunal held that income from conducting curries for charitable activities is eligible for exemption under Section 11 and that it is not necessary to specify a specific object in Form 10 for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify the fulfillment of other conditions for granting exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the AO was incorrect in assessing profits from charitable fundraising activities ('curries') and in taxing accumulated income merely because Form 10 did not specify a specific object for accumulation under Section 11(2). The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify fulfillment of other conditions for grant of exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, agreeing that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. It rejected the Revenue's arguments that the cases fell under specific exceptions like organized tax evasion (as per CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024) or that the circular should not be applied due to a cascading effect. The Tribunal clarified that the issues raised are left open for appropriate proceedings if any exceptions apply in the future.

The Tribunal found that the medical prescriptions did not prove complete bed rest during the relevant period, and no supporting affidavit from the tax consultant was provided. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not constitute 'reasonable cause' for condoning the delay. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, finding that the specific exceptions cited from CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 regarding organized tax evasion or bogus transactions did not apply, and the Supreme Court judgment was not relevant as no common principle of law was involved in these appeals which concerned additions under Sections 68/69. Therefore, applying CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed for having a tax effect below Rs. 60 lakhs, though the issues remain open for examination in appropriate future proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the cases did not involve organised tax evasion or bogus capital gains/accommodation entries, thereby rejecting the applicability of the exceptions in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. It also held that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. was not applicable as the present issue (Section 68/69 additions) was a mixed question of facts and law, not a common principle. Consequently, based on CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, the Revenue's appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lakhs were dismissed as not maintainable, while keeping the issues open for future examination if exceptions arise.

The Tribunal determined that the Revenue's appeals did not involve organized tax evasion, bogus capital gains/losses, or accommodation entries, thereby not meeting the exceptions to the CBDT circular. It clarified that the issue, an addition made under Section 68/69 of the Act, was a mixed question of facts and law, distinguishing it from the precedent cited. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 60 lakhs, in line with CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, while leaving the issues open for appropriate future proceedings if exceptions arise.

The Tribunal held that the reason provided for the inordinate delay of 1233 days did not constitute a "reasonable cause" and the condonation application lacked a supporting affidavit. Citing Apex Court judgments, it emphasized that a liberal approach to condonation of delay requires sufficient cause, which was not shown here. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the matter did not fall under the exceptions for organized tax evasion or other specific circumstances mentioned by the Revenue, particularly as the core issue involved additions under Sections 68/69, a mixed question of fact and law. Finding that the tax effect was indeed below the Rs. 60 lakh threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable, with the clarification that the issues raised are left open for future proceedings if exceptions arise.

The tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay to be too general and not constituting a reasonable cause. Citing precedence, the tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The connected duplicate appeal was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 230 days in filing the appeal. On merits, considering the assessee's NRI status, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.3,16,124 for the cost of improvement and restricted the disallowance for the cost of construction to Rs.10 lakh, granting partial relief.

The Tribunal ruled that the appeals did not fall under the specified exceptions for organized tax evasion or common principles of law, as the issue involved mixed questions of facts and law regarding Section 68/69 additions. Consequently, as the tax effect was below the Rs. 60 lakh threshold, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The issues raised were kept open for future appropriate proceedings if the appeal falls under any exceptions.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment under Section 148. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's case, the Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the AO regarding the attribution of profits received as project advances, concluding that project work started with advance payment and part of the cost should be recognized as income.

The Tribunal condoned the 48-day delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the reopening of assessment under Section 148 and, following its own co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's identical case, confirmed that project work commenced upon receipt of advance payments, thus validating the recognition of part of the project cost as income by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the 48-day delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the reopening of assessment under Section 148 and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The decision on merits was based on a previous ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case, which held that project advance should be recognized as income.

The Tribunal, noting that the Departmental Representative admitted the bank confirmed the existence of NRE deposits, remitted the matter back to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to freshly examine the issue in light of the additional documentary evidence provided.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue admitted the existence of NRE deposits upon inquiry. Considering this and the fresh documentary evidence filed by the assessee, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative conceded that bank inquiries confirmed the existence of NRE account deposits. Considering this and additional documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, the ITAT remitted the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's DR admitted the existence of NRE deposits. Considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee to prove non-resident status, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue afresh in light of these new documentary evidences.

The Tribunal found that lower authorities failed to establish a direct link between the seized material from the third-party search and the assessee's undisclosed income. It held that mere disclosure of additional income in response to a Section 153C notice does not automatically prove concealment of income for the purpose of levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal.

The Tribunal found that lower authorities failed to establish a clear nexus between the seized material from the third-party search and the appellant's undisclosed income. It held that merely disclosing additional income in response to a Section 153C notice, especially when the assessment arises from a third-party search, does not automatically constitute concealment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to establish the link between the seized material from the third-party search and the appellant's undisclosed income. It held that merely disclosing additional income in response to a Section 153C notice, especially in the context of a third-party search, does not automatically lead to a conclusion of concealment. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal with a proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to adequately discuss the evidence from the third-party search and seizure and establish how it led to the unearthing of the assessee's undisclosed income. It held that merely disclosing additional income in response to a Section 153C notice does not automatically imply concealment. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to adequately discuss the evidence from the search and seizure proceedings that led to the unearthing of undisclosed income or how the seized material directly related to the appellant. It was held that merely disclosing additional income in response to a Section 153C notice does not automatically establish concealment of income. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal to properly examine the nexus between the seized material and the appellant's undisclosed income.

The Tribunal found the reasons for delay insufficient to constitute "reasonable cause." It noted that medical prescriptions did not support continuous bed rest during the entire limitation period and there was no affidavit from the consultant. Citing Apex Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that the power to condone delay cannot be exercised to frustrate the substantial law of limitation and, therefore, dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation.