ITAT Cochin Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding Grounds 1 and 2, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly exercised powers under Section 250(4) by calling for a remand report. The additional evidence was not admitted directly but forwarded for verification. The AO examined the evidence and submitted findings, confirming the genuineness of transactions. Therefore, the admission of additional evidence did not violate Rule 46A. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report contained no adverse remarks on the loan transactions. The report summarized the lenders: M/s Anantnath Skycon Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 4.25 crore, repaid with interest, TDS deducted, lender's income Rs. 666.71 crore), M/s Pitamber Commodities Futures Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 1 crore, related concern, squared up, lender's loss Rs. 31.68 lakh), M/s Motisons Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 79.40 lakh, repaid with interest, TDS deducted, lender's income Rs. 1.08 lakh), and Shri Prashant Tibrewala (Rs. 3.09 crore, Director/shareholder, transactions through running account, lender's income Rs. 20.18 lakh). The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of these transactions, as reflected in the remand report. Consequently, the remaining grounds raised by the Revenue were also found to be devoid of merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before it, and consequently, no arguments were presented on behalf of the assessee. The Revenue was represented, and the appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for AY 2014-15. However, the judgment excerpt provided does not contain the findings or decision of the Tribunal on the merits of the case or the specific issues raised. The operative directions or the final outcome of the appeal are not recorded in the provided text.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee's first application, though filed under a wrong section, was decided on merits by the CIT(E) vide order dated January 16, 2026. When an application is rejected on merits, the statutory remedy available to the assessee is to challenge the order before a higher forum. Instead of doing so, the assessee filed a second application in Form 10AB, which amounted to a misuse of the process of law. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had categorically recorded that since no appeal was filed against the order dated January 16, 2026, the findings for rejection had attained finality. Therefore, the second application was not maintainable, and consequently, the appeals against the orders rejecting the second application also did not lie. The Tribunal answered the framed question in the negative and dismissed both appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee's first application, though filed under a wrong section, was decided on merits by the CIT(E) vide order dated January 16, 2026. When an application is rejected on merits, the statutory remedy available to the assessee is to challenge the order before a higher forum. Instead of doing so, the assessee filed a second application in Form 10AB, which amounted to a misuse of the process of law. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had categorically recorded that since no appeal was filed against the order dated January 16, 2026, the findings for rejection had attained finality. Therefore, the second application was not maintainable, and consequently, the appeals against the orders rejecting the second application also did not lie. The Tribunal answered the framed question in the negative and dismissed both appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Jaipur Bench is not maintainable. This decision was based on the territorial jurisdiction notification and Standing Order No. 01 of 2021 issued by the Hon’ble President, ITAT, which stipulates that appeals arising from orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur, are exclusively cognizable by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench was dismissed. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Jodhpur Bench in the manner known to law. No other issues were decided.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application before the ROC for amending its Articles of Association, specifically Article 41 (buyback of shares) and Articles 80 to 88 (dividend and reserves). Considering this development and the assessee's request for an opportunity to file all necessary details, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details to enable the CIT(E) to pass an order for registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) as per law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E) had recorded that notices were served, but the appellant denied the service of summons. To ensure the cause of justice, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to one more opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had also filed its registration issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the matter afresh, providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application before the ROC for amending its Articles of Association, specifically Article 41 (buyback of shares) and Articles 80 to 88 (dividend and reserves). Considering this development and the assessee's request for an opportunity to file all necessary details, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details to enable the CIT(E) to pass an order for registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) as per law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were ex parte and were passed without granting the assessee a proper and meaningful opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Similarly, the issue of denial of approval under Section 80G of the Act, which was consequential to the denial of Section 12AB registration, was also restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to be considered afresh along with the Section 12AB application. The Tribunal observed that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had rightly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the assessee's contention that the AO had made adequate inquiries and formed a plausible opinion. The Tribunal noted that the AO was in possession of adverse information regarding ICPL, including investigation reports and statements from its directors admitting to providing accommodation entries. Despite this, the AO failed to conduct any inquiries or confront the assessee with this adverse material. The AO merely accepted the documents filed by the assessee, which established identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, without verifying them against the adverse information. The Tribunal found this to be a case of improper/inadequate inquiry, amounting to an abdication of duty by the AO. Explanation 2 to Section 263 explicitly deems an order erroneous if passed without making necessary inquiries or verification. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases of *Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd.* and *Shri Nirav Modi* as being factually different, where the AO had made inquiries and was satisfied with the evidence. Therefore, the PCIT rightly held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all the necessary details. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies, especially when the application for a prerequisite registration (like under the RPT Act) has been filed. The operative direction is to set aside the orders and remand the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity for a hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all the necessary details. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies, especially when the application for a prerequisite registration (like under the RPT Act) has been filed. The operative direction is to set aside the orders and remand the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity for a hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) erred in refusing registration solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act, especially when the competent authority under the RPT Act had determined that the temple is not required to be registered. The Tribunal noted that section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) requires compliance with applicable laws material to the objects, and if the administering authority states no such requirement exists, there can be no non-compliance. The order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which found the temple to be a private temple not falling under the RPT Act, was a determination within the RPT Act's machinery. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) brushed aside this order without examination and without reasons. The Supreme Court judgment in New Noble Educational Society was distinguished as it dealt with cases where the applicability of the State law was not in dispute. However, the Tribunal also noted that the issues of the temple's objects and the genuineness of its activities, as required by section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and relevant to section 13(1)(a), had not been examined by the CIT(E). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to consider all aspects, including the 1984 order and the nature of the temple's objects and activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation that the firm had ceased operations and communications were missed. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the lack of compliance by the assessee during assessment and appeal proceedings before the NFAC, considered the peculiar facts of the case. It was held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the order of the NFAC was set aside, and the file was restored to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the Assessing Officer was at liberty to pass an order based on the material on record, even if ex-parte. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent and had filed an adjournment application. The Revenue's representative was present and argued the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The Department had information regarding cash deposits of Rs.36,89,132/- and interest income of Rs.36,20,226/-, which led to the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Since the assessee did not present its case or offer any arguments against the reopening, and the Revenue had provided a basis for the reopening, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid because the assessee had admittedly not filed its return of income, and therefore, the income in question had not been subjected to assessment. The judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable on facts. Regarding the validity of the PCIT's approval, the Tribunal found that the PCIT had recorded satisfaction with reference to the information and material available, indicating due application of mind, and rejected the assessee's contention. However, the Tribunal found the addition made under Section 69 to be erroneous and unsustainable. It noted that Section 69 is attracted for investments not recorded in books of account, whereas the assessee claimed the amount was received through banking channels and utilized for time deposits, and that the transaction was recorded in the books. The Tribunal also observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had made any independent inquiry from the lender, Shri Pushkar Pathak, to ascertain the creditworthiness, rendering the conclusion arbitrary. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Grounds challenging the addition on merits were allowed, while the additional ground challenging the validity of reopening was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding technical difficulties in filing on the Income Tax Portal. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was ex-parte and the NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-compliance before the first appellate authority. Considering the facts, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the order of the NFAC was set aside, and the file was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material, even if ex-parte. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the record, was of the considered view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present his case. The Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and produce necessary evidence in support of the claim for exemption under section 10(38). The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings; otherwise, the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material, even if ex-parte. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes to provide the opportunity. The specific grounds regarding jurisdiction, change of opinion, vague reasons, non-dealing of objections, failure to controvert evidence, illegality of sanction, and denial of cross-examination were not adjudicated upon.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application filed by the assessee's representative and proceeded to adjudicate the appeal. The Judicial Member, after considering the facts and the submission of the Ld. Sr. D.R., was of the view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present his case. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the file to the office of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati. The directions were to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal, and if deemed appropriate, to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the directions, failing which the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati was at liberty to pass an ex-parte order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine the assessee's accounts and activities before passing the assessment and penalty orders. The dismissal of appeals solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits, was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine the assessee's accounts and activities before passing the assessment and penalty orders. The dismissal of appeals solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits, was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine the assessee's accounts and activities before passing the assessment and penalty orders. The dismissal of appeals solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits, was deemed unsustainable.