ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and bonafide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all necessary details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the possibility of communication gaps, restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at their risk.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay and emphasizing the importance of giving a right to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee were crucial and went to the root of the matter. The CIT(A) was directed to admit these documents and decide the appeal on merits after providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to potential communication gaps.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the larger interest of justice. It was held that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not adequately present their case before the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to recall the order if not successful under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to bring on record any evidence to negate these claims, and suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof. Therefore, the additions and disallowances made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and provide necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value as the officer is not authorized to administer oath. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the addition was based solely on such a statement without corroborative material and therefore could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Act. The date of uploading the DRP order on the ITBA portal was determined as 31.05.2024, and the assessment ought to have been completed by 31.05.2022. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw ITA No. 6074/Del/2024, considering that two appeals were filed for the same assessment year and one was already listed for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of transactions and the creditworthiness of creditors by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The AO's additions were based on suspicion rather than tangible evidence, and the opportunity to cross-examine was denied. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the loan creditors. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought forth sufficient evidence to negate the genuineness and that mere suspicion could not take the place of proof. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for taxable income, standalone financial results are relevant, not consolidated ones. It also observed that software expenses were revenue expenditure and allowed the ground. The issue of loss on sale of investment was remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had demonstrated the source of the cash deposits from explained sources like sales proceeds. The nature of the business and historical data supported the explanation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and was awaiting Form 2. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since all additions made in the assessment order were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty order based on those additions was unsustainable. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that penalty cannot be imposed when expenses are claimed on the strength of an audit report by a CA, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a notice under section 143(2) and furnish reasons for reopening the assessment, even after taking cognizance of the assessee's return, rendered the reassessment proceedings void. The assessee's failure to e-verify the return was rectified subsequently.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and ambiguous, as it mentioned both 'under reporting' and 'mis-reporting' of income, but the penalty was ultimately levied for 'mis-reporting of income-claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence' without specifying under which clause of Section 270A(9) it was invoked.

The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority under section 151, which was not rebutted by the department. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly analyzed the facts and admitted additional evidence. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were from explained sources, primarily sale proceeds, and there was a regular pattern of such deposits in earlier and subsequent years. The business model involved significant cash sales and collections from vendors/customers.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not fully participate in the assessment and appellate proceedings, and requested video conferencing which was denied. Considering the facts and the issue of short TDS deduction, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce all details and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal of the assessee, ITA No. 308/Del/2025, was still pending and yet to attain finality. Considering this factual position, the Tribunal restored the penalty appeal back to the Assessing Officer to await the final outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to provide the required details.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the corresponding limb in the penalty show-cause notice, as required by law, vitiates the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were declared void.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide denovo after providing opportunities. A cost of INR 5,000/- was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal inclined to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) to decide on merit after proper documentary evidence and opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to submit relevant information without adjournment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in making additions on issues not forming part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. For AY 2018-19, it was held that the expenses disallowed were for day-to-day business activities and did not relate to earning exempt income, hence the disallowance was deleted.

The tribunal condoned the 1137-day delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. On the substantive issue, the tribunal directed the assessing authority to ensure that no double addition of salary income is made in the assessee's hands.