ITAT Cuttack Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal, after considering the condonation petitions and the reasons provided by the assessee, was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 174 days in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 397 days after being satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without considering the merits. Since the assessee undertook to cooperate with the proceedings if the matter was restored, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee was under the impression that there was no tax liability and only realized the complication after the penalty was imposed. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that to meet the principle of natural justice, the order of the CIT(Appeals) should be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 203 days, finding sufficient cause due to the illness of the Managing Trustee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and hence, set aside the order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 152 days, acknowledging the assessee's medical reasons. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices to substantiate their claim before the AO and CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of additions. Although the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sole grievance was that despite furnishing documents, they were not considered. The assessee's AR undertook to provide all required details to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted that the appellant trust failed to produce relevant documents before the CIT(E) to substantiate its charitable activities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant trust failed to produce relevant documents before the CIT(E) to substantiate its charitable activities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, finding merit in the assessee's contention about the lack of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to allow the assessee one more opportunity to be heard by the AO, cautioning the assessee to cooperate promptly. The Tribunal also restored the appeals for AY 2013-14 to the AO for verification of the source of investment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not made full disclosure despite opportunities. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing the appeal were justifiable, considering the director's illness and the lack of proper communication of the order. The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was levied.

The Tribunal found that the appellant trust could not place relevant documents before the CIT(E) to prove the bonafides of its charitable activities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to the assessee to furnish all required documents and for the CIT(Exemption) to re-adjudicate the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to allow the assessee one more opportunity to be heard by the AO, cautioning the assessee to cooperate promptly. The Tribunal also restored the appeals for AY 2013-14 to the AO for verification of the source of investment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeals after hearing the assessee, as the delay did not benefit the assessee. The CIT(A) passed orders on limitation and merits without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeals after hearing the assessee, as the delay did not benefit the assessee. The CIT(A) passed orders on limitation and merits without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had been granted provisional registration, the CIT(E) rejected the application for permanent registration without providing sufficient opportunity for the assessee to furnish all relevant documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and to consider the additional documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished information before the predecessor of the CIT(E) which was not considered. The assessee requested the matter to be remitted back for fresh consideration, undertaking to furnish all information. Similarly, for the second appeal, the assessee requested further opportunity to furnish documents.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant trust failed to produce relevant documents before the CIT(E) to substantiate its charitable activities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished information before the predecessor of the CIT(E) which was not considered. The assessee requested the matter to be remitted back for fresh consideration, undertaking to furnish all information. Similarly, for the second appeal, the assessee requested further opportunity to furnish documents.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant trust failed to provide relevant documents to the Ld. CIT(E) to substantiate its charitable activities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded both matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matters back to the AO for both assessment years. For AY 2016-17, the AO was directed to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard, and for AY 2013-14, to properly examine the source of investment and determine the correct assessment year for taxation. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceedings.