ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had opted to settle the disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and treated the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the revenue did not accept the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the addresses of the lender companies were bogus, and there were immediate credits and debits in their accounts. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the minimum prescribed by the CBDT circular, which is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot initiate reassessment proceedings to recover a refund that was already processed and paid. The AO's recourse, if any, would be to appeal the original assessment order, not to initiate fresh proceedings for recovery.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided the Assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce documents before rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to produce documents and make submissions before deciding the application on its merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, there was a possibility of communication gaps between the taxpayer and their counsel concerning the faceless hearing system. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to present their case, with the rider that they would plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to produce documents and make submissions before deciding the application on its merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and the assessee had not appeared before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice and fairplay, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed sources and commission income. It followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, especially after a corrigendum clarified that commission income was already taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to strike off the irrelevant portion of the penalty notice, thereby not specifically mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, is fatal to the penalty proceedings. This is based on the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT and the Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed sources and commission income. It followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, especially after a corrigendum clarified that commission income was already taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide required details to the CIT(E) despite multiple opportunities. However, considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed sources and commission income. It followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, especially after a corrigendum clarified that commission income was already taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing an opportunity to the Assessee to produce documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting the Assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed sources and commission income. It followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, especially after a corrigendum clarified that commission income was already taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed sources and commission income. It followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, especially after a corrigendum clarified that commission income was already taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. It deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The primary issue considered was the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which was deemed to go to the root of the matter. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel pointed out that the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 to the Assessing Officer's reopening proposal was a mechanical "yes, it is a fit case". Crucially, this fact of mechanical approval by the competent authority remained unrebutted by the department. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits, all issues were restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, with directions for the assessee to participate.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, observing the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities. The AO is directed to decide the issue de novo, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee must participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(E) to establish the genuineness of its activities. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had repeatedly asked for details, which the assessee failed to provide, leading to the denial of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and consequently under Section 80G. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) observed non-submission of complete details, the assessee had submitted some details which were not considered complete. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the appeals after the assessee furnishes complete details.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(E) to establish the genuineness of its activities. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had repeatedly asked for details, which the assessee failed to provide, leading to the denial of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and consequently under Section 80G. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) observed non-submission of complete details, the assessee had submitted some details which were not considered complete. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the appeals after the assessee furnishes complete details.

The Tribunal held that taxable income must be assessed in the hands of the correct person. Since the deposits were not made in the assessee's personal account, the addition made by the lower authorities was quashed.

The Tribunal held that while the grounds of appeal were discussed, the CIT(A) had no option but to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was sent back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided the appellant an opportunity to produce all requisite documents and make submissions. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after ensuring the appellant is given an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced system of faceless hearings. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits, all issues were restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, with directions for the assessee to participate.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte decision was not justified. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC and directed the NFAC to admit the appeal for adjudication. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned due to a dispute between the partners and the resulting ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) was directed to admit additional evidence and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that filing a return under Section 139(1) or 139(4C)(e) was not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). The Tribunal also noted that in a subsequent year, on similar facts, the exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to substantiate their findings that the impugned transaction was non-genuine. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of online purchase, banking channel payments, dematerialized shares, and receipt of consideration through banking channels.

The ITAT found that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances. The ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeals on their merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had already restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Given the ex-parte assessment already framed by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the remand direction.

The ITAT found that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances. The ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeals on their merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) with directions to re-examine the assessee's claims regarding its existing Section 80G registration. The CIT(E) is to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing an opportunity to the Assessee to produce documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting the Assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which held that employee contributions deducted are deemed income and must be deposited by the due date for deduction. However, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO to verify the date of salary disbursement and check for genuine prevention from timely deposit.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC had decided the issue ex-parte without giving its independent finding. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC (likely referring to the CIT(A) or a similar appellate authority) had decided the issue ex parte without providing an independent finding. Therefore, to ensure justice and fairplay, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee chose not to carry forward the losses to future assessment years, the adjusted losses had no impact on taxable income. Therefore, there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, and the penalty was not required.

The Tribunal held that while a satisfactory explanation for the entire amount was lacking, the entire addition could not be denied. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed appropriate and not to be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a hearing on merits. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the appellant to produce documents and then decided the application on its merit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter.