ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without proper adjudication was deemed illegal and violative of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or based on the Assessing Officer's order being 'self-speaking'.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal because the grounds of appeal were based on the original assessment order and not the rectification order, which was the subject of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal based on this technicality.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act by the JCIT(Central), Bhubaneswar was done in a mechanical manner by a single order, without application of mind. Therefore, the approval was quashed as unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act was unsustainable because the provisions of Section 153C of the Act required a notice to be issued and the assessment to be done under section 153C/144. It was noted that no notice u/s.153C was issued to the assessee, nor was any satisfaction recorded. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act was unsustainable and liable to be quashed because the proceedings should have been conducted under section 153C of the Act. This was due to the use of seized material from a third party, the absence of a satisfaction note, and the failure to issue a notice under section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act was not sustainable as the proceedings should have been initiated under section 153C of the Act. Crucially, no notice under section 153C was issued, and no satisfaction was recorded, making the assessment order void ab initio. The appeals related to penalties levied under sections 270A and 271AAC(1) were also quashed as the foundation for the penalties was removed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D of the Act was done in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal quashed the approval as unsustainable.

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was granted only one day to respond to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the quantum appeal was restored to the AO for re-adjudication with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal partly allowed ITA No. 234/CTK/2025 for statistical purposes, restoring the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. ITA No. 237/CTK/2025 was dismissed as infructuous, being a duplication of ITA No. 234/CTK/2025.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's petition regarding registration under Section 12A of the Act is pending before the High Court, and this issue has a substantial bearing on the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the outcome of the assessee's petition regarding Section 12A registration pending before the High Court would have a substantial bearing on the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that granting only one day to respond to the show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the quantum appeal was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering that the issue of registration under Section 12A is pending before the High Court and has a substantial bearing on the facts, the appeals are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal noted that the outcome of the High Court's decision on Section 12A registration would significantly impact the present case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after the High Court's decision.

The appellate tribunal held that the order of the CIT(E) was not a speaking order. The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the pending High Court case regarding Section 12A registration has a substantial bearing on the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.

The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to produce documents. To provide a fair opportunity, the appeals concerning quantum additions were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The penalty appeals were cancelled, with liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the quantum adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee switched from a cash to a mercantile system after the search, and the difference in income was due to accrued interest, not concealment. The penalties were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not cooperated in the appellate proceedings. However, considering the request for an opportunity to produce documents, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication. The CIT(E) should provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and to rectify any defects in the application.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee shifted from a cash basis to a mercantile system after the search. It held that the accrued interest offered in the revised return did not constitute undisclosed or suppressed income, nor did it amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO or CIT(A). The method of treating bank deposits as turnover and estimating income was deemed impermissible. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents before the authorities below and that their submissions about trainee accountants were an afterthought. To provide adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed chosen the wrong code for the Section 12A registration. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for re-adjudication and to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistakes. The issue of 80G recognition was also to be considered subsequently.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee showed an inability to produce documents and that the submission regarding trainee accountants was an afterthought. However, to grant adequate opportunity, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee chose the wrong code for Section 12A registration. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Learned CIT (E) for re-adjudication and to allow the assessee an opportunity to rectify any mistakes.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce relevant documents before the lower authorities and considered the submission regarding trainee accountants as an afterthought. However, to grant an adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO, and the bank account claimed as belonging to the partnership firm was shown by the AO to belong to the individual assessee. The partnership firm had not filed its return, and the assessee's conduct was deemed contumacious.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given only 3 days to respond to the CIT(E)'s notice. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and rectify defects.

The tribunal noted that the assessee was granted only 03 days to respond to the notice. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and rectify defects in the application.

For AY 2012-2013, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and not on any failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and consequential order were quashed. For AY 2014-2015, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented, including the remand report, field inquiry, and documentation, supported the assessee's claim of agricultural income, leading to the deletion of the additional disallowance.

For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, as the original assessment had accepted the agricultural income, and thus quashed the reassessment. For AY 2014-15, based on a remand report confirming extensive agricultural land cultivation and proper banking channel receipts for produce, the Tribunal deleted the additional disallowance of agricultural income, maintaining only the undisputed initial disallowance.

The Tribunal noted the submission regarding the VSVS Scheme and form no. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) for both assessment years did not show any prior intimation to the assessee as required by the proviso. Consequently, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the verification report was not dislodged by the revenue. Since the findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) based on the verification were not disputed by the revenue, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

The tribunal observed that the Addl./JCIT(A) had already condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The issues were restored to the Addl./JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the sale transaction clearly pertained to AY 2016-17 and not AY 2017-18. Although the AO examined the cash receipt and noted a contravention of Section 269SS for AY 2017-18, no addition was made. The Tribunal held that the violation, if any, should have been considered in AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal found that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) did not show that a preliminary intimation was issued as required by the proviso. Therefore, the intimation issued for both assessment years was quashed.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the mistake was rectifiable. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(E) and to rectify its mistake in filing the necessary application. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue on merits after rectification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to revive them by filing a miscellaneous application if not successful in the VSVS-24.

The Tribunal held that for estimating income under Section 145 of the Act, it is compulsory to invoke the provisions of Section 145 and reject the books of account. In this case, the AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, making the estimation unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not pass a speaking order and the reasons for rejection were not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) to reconsider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file a proper application for immunity under section 270AA of the Act in the prescribed format. The letter submitted by the assessee was merely an intimation of tax payment and did not meet the conditions for immunity, specifically regarding the filing of an appeal. Therefore, the claim for immunity could not be considered.

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided plausible and sufficient reasons for the delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing, and the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that while the Id.CIT(A) acknowledged the reasons for delay, the order was not passed on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B one month before the due date of the return is not a mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12. Even if filed at a later stage, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption. The intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act stands quashed.