ITAT Cochin Judgments — November 2025

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and in violation of natural justice, as it lacked cogent reasons and incorrectly applied the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision to the appellate authority. The Tribunal held that appellate authorities are not barred from entertaining new claims. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal with a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellant.

The CIT(A) deleted additions related to old balances and trade payables as they did not pertain to the relevant assessment year or were not loans. However, the CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 33 lakhs due to the assessee's failure to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of lenders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach was untenable as it rejected the explanation without affording an opportunity to rebut and effectively went into the 'source of source' for an addition made under Section 69A. Consequently, the matter is restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, requiring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to be provided to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B for accepting the cash due to commercial compulsion, immediate bank deposit, and full disclosure, which demonstrated no intention to evade tax. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), noting that the assessment order was ex-parte and the assessee failed to provide proper evidence for cultivation. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 8% of the gross turnover to be reasonable and justified. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the rejection was solely due to belated filing, but the impugned order lacked any finding regarding the commencement date of the trust's activities. Since the filing deadline under Section 80G proviso is linked to the commencement of activities, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration to determine this crucial date.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach of making an addition solely based on information about accommodation entries, without specific findings on the appellant's submitted purchase details, was not tenable. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, ensuring the appellant receives a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound under Section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of an appeal on merits, even ex-parte, after framing points of determination. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the rectification application was hopelessly time-barred, having been filed beyond the statutory four-year limit from the original intimation under Section 143(1) and the initial rectification order under Section 154. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in M/S. Hind Wire Industries Ltd.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify the defect of the inadvertently unsigned Form 10B. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the matter on merits and solely relying on a procedural technicality. It emphasized the need for a fact-based examination of the assessee's eligibility under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that a condonation petition for delayed filing of the return was pending before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential order based on the outcome of the said condonation petition.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate these crucial grounds, including the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 4/2002, thereby violating natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, with directions to consider all submissions and the said circular.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's continuous illness claim and, considering prior chronic ill health, held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the 118-day delay despite the lack of a current medical certificate. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal of the appeal on merits, affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) examined the assessee's eligibility for deduction on merits, and disallowances were made solely due to non-submission of documents without proper examination. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit relevant documents and allowing the AO to verify the claims, including the correct section of deduction and eligibility under 80P(2)(a)(i), on merits.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing the reasonable cause for the 124-day delay in filing. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had no taxable income and the Revenue failed to prove proper service of notices. It concluded that the non-filing and non-response were due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, constituting a reasonable cause. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271F was not justified and was accordingly deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated under Section 250(6) to dispose of appeals on merits, even in cases of non-prosecution or ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits in banks and treasury is attributable to its main business. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for such interest income.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting additional evidence and providing proper opportunity of hearing. Both parties agreed to a remand. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, with directions to afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed that the appeal's tax effect was indeed below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No.9/2024 and did not fall under any specified exceptions. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was found to be not maintainable due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal found that the revenue's appeal indeed had a low tax effect below the monetary limits set by CBDT Circular No.9/2024. The Revenue failed to show that the case fell under any exceptions to the Circular. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that since the CIT(A) had already addressed and allowed all the assessee's grounds of appeal, there was no subsisting grievance for the assessee. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the eligibility of deduction for interest income from co-operative banks, Gold loans, SBI, and treasury investments is settled by various jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions. It concluded that such income, derived from investments made out of surplus funds, qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals.

The ITAT, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits. The assessee was granted another opportunity to file submissions and evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal ruled that interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with other co-operative societies qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that interest income from Gold loans and fixed deposits with SBI and treasury qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), as these are investments made from surplus funds, relying on various Jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal, relying on various Jurisdictional High Court decisions, held that interest income earned from other co-operative societies qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It further held that interest income from Gold loans and fixed deposits with SBI/treasury also qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), as these were investments made out of surplus funds.

The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee for the 227-day delay in filing the appeal to be not bonafide and insufficient. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine as being time-barred due to the unexcused delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment on merits, ensuring proper opportunity is given to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the medical emergency as a valid reason. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee due opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT condoned the 358-day delay in filing the appeal for AY 2019-20 before itself. For AY 2017-18, relying on a High Court order, the ITAT found no delay in filing before the CIT(A) and remitted the appeal for merits. For AY 2019-20, finding that the CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity, the ITAT also remitted the appeal for merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), acknowledging that the reasons for delay could not be ruled out. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, directing the assessee to provide all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits. The assessee was directed to submit all necessary evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), considering the assessee's claim of suffering from kidney stones and the principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions.

For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal, noting a Hon'ble High Court order, found no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the appeal back for fresh adjudication on merits. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not provided proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence and remitted this appeal as well back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording due opportunity. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's failure to respond to AO's notices but considered the stated reason (Kerala floods affecting business receipts). Finding it a fit case, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, requiring that the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence (commission agreement, expense ledgers, Section 54F documents) to be crucial and going to the root of the matter, warranting verification. However, it deemed it unfeasible to conduct a complete verification at the appellate stage. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence, decide all issues afresh, and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to provide a valid reason for not imposing the penalty. The CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty amount of Rs. 8,070/-, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with that order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the source of cash deposits by not providing details of land holding, cultivation proof, average yield, or the PAN of the buyer, Shri Manoj Kumar. Consequently, the addition of unexplained money was justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. It emphasized that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of appeals on merits, even ex-parte. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the current appeal as infructuous. The decision was based on the fact that the matter had already been addressed and decided under a different appeal number, making the present appeal redundant.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the lower authorities, ruling that BSNL employees cannot be equated with Central Government employees. Therefore, the appellant was not eligible for the full leave encashment deduction under Section 10(10AA), as the exemption is limited to Rs. 3,00,000/- for non-Central Government employees.

The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. This was because no valid return of income was filed within the statutory timelines, as mandated by Section 80A(5) and further emphasized by the post-2018 amendment to Section 80AC, making the deduction conditional on filing a return by the due date under Section 139(1).

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the 50-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided (senior citizen, hospitalization, Covid-19 lockdown) were not contradicted. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowance of the Section 54 deduction. It ruled that the appellant failed to demonstrate completion of the new house construction or deposit unutilised sale proceeds in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal held that remittances by non-residents from income earned abroad are not taxable in India. It reiterated that the word "receipt" implies two distinct persons, and funds transferred from the appellant's own foreign account cannot be considered as income "received" in India for the first time. Therefore, the AO was not justified in questioning the source of income earned outside India by a non-resident, and the addition was deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting a significant delay of 572 days in filing. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reason for delay, which attributed it to the illness of the tax consultant, emphasizing that a litigant cannot shift the burden and that those who delay in approaching the court should not be granted extraordinary relief, citing a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, rejecting the condonation of delay petition. It found the appellant's explanation for the 511-day delay unsubstantiated and not bona fide, lacking crucial details about the pending rectification appeal cited by the appellant.