ITAT Cuttack Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 321-day delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 18 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court guidelines, considering the delay was not intentional. For the assessment year 2017-18, the appeal was also restored.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to explain the difference between the purchase value and SDV, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal observed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 were passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the quantum appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for the assessment year 2015-16, it was also sent back to the AO for a decision after the finalization of the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after the assessee provided a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without considering the merits. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, emphasizing the need for cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte and the assessee was unaware due to personal reasons. The Tribunal found that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as the revenue had not controverted the assessee's explanation that the deposits were trading receipts.

The Tribunal, finding that the principle of natural justice was not met, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 were passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the quantum appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for the assessment year 2015-16, it was also sent back to the AO for a decision after the finalization of the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 142 days, accepting the assessee's explanation of illness and lack of awareness of the ex-parte order. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to uphold the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 446 days after finding reasonable cause for the late filing. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, directing the assessee to appear without adjournment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 302 days due to the assessee's illness. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard, emphasizing that failure to cooperate may lead to an appropriate order based on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was that they were business receipts from retailers. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and held that the sales made by the assessee and the deposited specified bank notes were legally valid, thus no addition was warranted for these deposits. The Tribunal also found the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of carriage outward expenses unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, adopting a liberal approach as per the Supreme Court ruling in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The ex-parte dismissal for AY 2017-18 was also restored. All appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the 29-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity of being heard, while cautioning them to cooperate with the proceedings.

Despite the assessee not appearing before the Tribunal and having failed to submit documents to the Id CIT(A) previously, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity. The issues are restored to the file of the Id CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to appear with necessary documentary evidence. If the assessee again fails to appear, the Id CIT(A) is at liberty to pass the order as per law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court guidelines, considering the delay was not intentional. For the assessment year 2017-18, the appeal was also restored.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court guidelines, considering the delay was not intentional. For the assessment year 2017-18, the appeal was also restored.

The Tribunal observed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 were passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the quantum appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for the assessment year 2015-16, it was also sent back to the AO for a decision after the finalization of the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 446 days, accepting the assessee's plea of sufficient cause. The Tribunal inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's 12A registration already indicated its charitable objects and activities. It remitted the primary appeal (ITA No.91/CTK/2025) back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh consideration of the 80G application, instructing to provide an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence. The duplicate appeal (ITA No.100/CTK/2025) was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 291 days. The appellate order of the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-submission of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was already registered under Section 12A, which implies satisfaction with its charitable objects and activities. The rejection of the 80G application was based on a general statement without specific findings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 531 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause, including medical issues and issues with prior legal representation, preventing timely filing. The Tribunal noted that at both the assessment and appellate stages, proper representation was not made by the assessee, leading to the assessment order being made to the best of judgment and the appeal being decided ex parte. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity for representing the case and being heard to the Ld. AO as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, before passing an order in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that even if exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was not allowable, only the net surplus of income over expenditure should be taxed, not the gross receipts. It noted that subsequent assessment years had been rectified to tax only the surplus, establishing a rule of consistency.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application due to incomplete information and the inability to verify the genuineness of activities. To ensure justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to submit the remaining information.

The Tribunal held that a procedural lapse like delayed filing of Form 10 cannot lead to disallowance of exemption under Section 11(2) at the intimation stage under Section 143(1)(a). The relevant amendment to Section 13(9) was effective from AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that a procedural lapse like delayed filing of Form 10 cannot lead to disallowance of exemption under Section 11(2) at the intimation stage under Section 143(1)(a). The relevant amendment to Section 13(9) was effective from AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been properly represented before the CIT(A) and that the merits of the case were not decided. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish complete information and that the CIT(E) did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for treating only the demonetization period deposits as unexplained income while treating other deposits as business receipts. For AY 2017-18, the entire bank deposits were treated as turnover with an 8% profit rate. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for treating only the demonetization period deposits as unexplained income while treating other deposits as business receipts. For AY 2017-18, the entire bank deposits were treated as turnover with an 8% profit rate. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.