ITAT Cuttack Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the present appeal is a duplicate of a previously filed appeal for the same assessment year, which was already in the process of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on merits, having failed to adjudicate all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the delay in filing the audit report was a procedural lapse. Relying on judicial precedents and circulars, it was held that the filing of the auditor's report along with the return of income is a procedural provision and directory in nature. Therefore, the delay should not lead to the denial of exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's health issues and ignorance of tax procedures. The Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal observed that proper representation was not made by the assessee at earlier stages. Considering that the assessee claims to have sufficient evidence, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and while section 12AB registration was granted, 80G registration was denied due to lack of perceived genuineness. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee failed to appear or provide the required documentation. The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the order and, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the orders.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee failed to appear or provide the required documentation. The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the order and, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the orders.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were ex-parte and that the assessee's applications for registration were rejected for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and the application was rejected for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to provide written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remit the matter back for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were ex-parte and that the assessee's applications for registration were rejected for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and the application was rejected for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 552-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee, a lady from a rural area, was dependent on her tax consultant and the delay was due to the consultant's negligence. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and decided to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on a procedural ground and for not considering the valuation report. It was also held that the denial of TDS credit was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for both parties.

The Tribunal held that the rejection order by the Ld. CIT (Exemption) was passed without proper application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal considered it imperative to grant the assessee another opportunity to file remaining submissions.

The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 10B along with the return of income is a procedural requirement and not mandatory for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12. Since the assessee filed Form No. 10B before the return was processed, the exemption claimed was allowable.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed late even after the COVID period ended, and found no sufficient justification for the delay. The assessee's explanations, including issues with the previous tax consultant and the pandemic, were not considered sufficient cause for the delay.

The Tribunal acknowledged the justification for applying a net profit rate in the absence of books of accounts. However, it found the 8% rate to be on the higher side and restricted it to 6% of the total turnover, granting consequential relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities had placed reliance on the assessee to disprove alleged transactions recorded in an incriminating document recovered from a third party. The Tribunal noted that no attempt was made to verify the factual existence of transactions, such as truck numbers mentioned in the document. It found that the department used a document from a third party against the assessee, casting the onus on the assessee to disprove it, without verifying if the transaction actually occurred, especially when the assessee denied any connection to the names mentioned. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee, and the impugned addition could not be sustained. The addition was directed to be deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not provide a reasonable case for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The reasons provided were general and not substantiated by sufficient evidence for the entire period of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of fresh evidence, including a Registered Valuer's Report dated 17.11.2024 and a Bank Certificate dated 15.01.2025. The assessee contended that adequate opportunity was denied and that the matter was not referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, decided to remand the matter to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to consider the Registered Valuer's report and refer it to the DVO for comments. The assessee will be permitted to present any other facts before the AO in support of his claims. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh assessment. The issue of the validity of the notice u/s 148 was not expressly decided.