ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 of the appeal. It held that the assessee died during the penalty proceedings. The penalty order was passed on 26-08-2021, and notices were issued on 16-03-2021 and 17-05-2021, all in the name of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision in Mangadu Natarajan Balasundharam v. The Income Tax Officer (Chennai), held that legal heirs are not liable for penalty proceedings after the assessee's demise, particularly when the assessment was completed in the assessee's name, but the penalty was levied against a dead person. The reasoning is that the proceedings were conducted against a deceased individual, making them invalid. The Tribunal did not decide on the other grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the NFAC for a decision on merit, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case. This was done because the assessee's quantum appeal had been restored before the NFAC.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty was just and proper and did not warrant interference. The Tribunal considered the facts that the short-term capital loss was disclosed, there was no suppression of income, and the loss was neither utilized for set-off nor carried forward in reality. The "wrong claim" in the e-return filed under Section 148 was explained as system-driven and legally non-operative in view of Section 80 of the Act. Furthermore, no tax advantage accrued, and the reassessment concluded at the original returned loss. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the mens rea or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not present. The Tribunal respectfully relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. First India Private Limited and the Apex Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC), which held that mere rejection of a claim does not automatically attract penalty and that penalty provisions cannot be invoked merely because an assessee made a claim which did not ultimately result in tax benefits. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was sound.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not file the required details before the AO, leading to the additions. It also noted that the CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee and confirmed the AO's order. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted all additional papers and documents filed before it and directed the assessee to resubmit all required details and documents before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is instructed to pass a fresh adjudication order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard as required by law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was based on incriminating material seized from the laptop of Sh. Saurabh Gupta, an employee of M/s OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., which is a third-party premise. It is well-settled law that even in coordinated searches, incriminating material derived from third-party premises can only be assessed under section 153C of the Act, as supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in Anand Kumar Jain HUF. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that proceedings should have been under section 153C and rejected the Revenue's grounds. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the protective addition of Rs. 7.50 crore was made in the assessee's hands. However, the substantive addition of Rs. 7.50 crore was made in the hands of Sanjay Singhal for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal further noted that a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal had quashed the entire assessment proceedings in the case of Sanjay Singhal. Relying on the principle that if a substantive addition does not survive, a protective addition also does not survive, and citing the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Electrical and Electronic India Ltd., the Tribunal held that the protective addition in the assessee's case was not sustainable. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was affirmed. The appeals for both assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable. The Assessing Officer had made a protective addition of Rs. 20.98 crore in the assessee's hands, considering the assessee as a conduit for transferring funds to M/s Rajyog Buildtech Private Limited, where a substantive addition was made. However, it was noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of M/s Rajyog Buildtech Private Limited for AY 2014-15 had been deleted by the CIT(A) and this deletion was upheld by the ITAT. The Tribunal relied on the settled legal principle that a protective addition must have a substantive addition as its foundation. Since the substantive addition in the case of M/s Rajyog Buildtech Private Limited had ceased to exist, the protective addition in the assessee's case also did not survive. The Tribunal cited decisions in Kanaw Metals Vs. ITO and DCIT Vs. Artline Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. to support this view. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the protective addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was based on incriminating material seized from the laptop of Sh. Saurabh Gupta, an employee of M/s OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., which is a third-party premise. It is well-settled law that even in coordinated searches, incriminating material derived from third-party premises can only be assessed under section 153C of the Act, as supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in Anand Kumar Jain HUF. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that proceedings should have been under section 153C and rejected the Revenue's grounds. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the protective addition of Rs. 7.50 crore was made in the assessee's hands. However, the substantive addition of Rs. 7.50 crore was made in the hands of Sanjay Singhal for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal further noted that a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal had quashed the entire assessment proceedings in the case of Sanjay Singhal. Relying on the principle that if a substantive addition does not survive, a protective addition also does not survive, and citing the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Electrical and Electronic India Ltd., the Tribunal held that the protective addition in the assessee's case was not sustainable. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was affirmed. The appeals for both assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable. The primary reasons for this decision were the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT (3 days) for which no condonation petition was filed, and the fact that the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's earlier appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a significant delay of 795 days, which the NFAC had not condoned. The Tribunal also observed that the notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved with the remark 'no such firm', and the assessee had not provided an updated address. These factors led the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had indeed obtained a remand report from the AO and considered the assessee's rejoinder. The AO's report indicated that for AY 2023-24, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, and earlier notices under Section 142(1) were also served. The AO acknowledged potential constraints and suggested further opportunity if natural justice was not observed. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found the expenditure debited to the P&L account in respect of commission paid to the five parties was Rs. 43,42,602/-, not Rs. 2,43,23,025/- as disallowed. TDS at 5% had been deducted on this amount. The AO had not brought any adverse evidence on record, either during the original assessment or remand proceedings, to prove the expenditure was non-genuine or the parties were non-existent. The Tribunal concluded that the mere fact that parties were non-filers could not be a reason to disallow the expenditure in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was considered well-reasoned and justified.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the aggregation of debit and credit entries. It held that a mechanical approach of adding both sides of a running ledger account is flawed and leads to double taxation. The Tribunal reasoned that the peak credit or net difference represents the actual unexplained quantum. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the gross addition of Rs. 1,37,32,990/- and restrict the addition to the net difference of Rs. 14,42,350/-. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 4,11,990/- under Section 69C was also proportionately reduced to the net difference amount. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal acknowledged that accommodation entries were entered into, but since the debit entry represented the credit entry of the preceding year and the differential amount of Rs. 14,42,350/- was upheld for that year, no separate addition was required. The addition for AY 2017-18 was deleted, being telescoped into the addition made for the preceding year. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, which was admittedly issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2016-17. The Tribunal referred to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which prescribes a time limitation for reopening when the income escaping assessment is Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Assessing Officer had alleged an escapement of Rs. 55,22,250. However, the Tribunal found that an opening balance of Rs. 15 lakhs could not be considered as income escaping assessment for the relevant previous year, as it represented a closing figure from the preceding year and was not liable for addition under Section 69. Citing Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd (2008) and Naresh Balachander Rao Shinde vs ITO (2023), the Tribunal reasoned that excluding the Rs. 15 lakhs opening balance reduced the alleged escaped income to less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the reopening was quashed as being in violation of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. All other issues on merits were rendered academic.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its burden under Section 68 by establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The repayment of the loan and interest through banking channels, along with the lender being an NBFC, supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's justification for the delay to be adequate and unintentional, acknowledging that no litigant benefits from intentionally delaying their own matters. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer had passed an appeal effect order on 18.02.2025, deleting the additions made in the order under Section 144/147. Consequently, there was no concealed income available for penalty on the date the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed (03.03.2025). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.17,62,147/-. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal considered the affidavits filed by the assessee, noting his lack of conversance with tax laws and dependence on professionals. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/-. The ratio decidendi for the Section 271(1)(c) penalty is that penalty cannot be levied when the basis for the penalty (concealed income) ceases to exist due to subsequent favorable appellate orders. For the Section 271(1)(b) penalty, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act dated 31.03.2023 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on 18.10.2019, an order under Section 127 transferring the case was passed on 20.10.2020, the satisfaction note was recorded on 24.12.2021, and the notice under Section 153C was issued on 28.12.2021. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal determined that the limitation period commenced from 20.10.2020, the date of the Section 127 order. Consequently, the assessment order dated 30.03.2023 was found to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the assessment on this legal ground, allowing the assessee's ground of appeal. As the entire assessment was quashed on a legal ground, other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and left open. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. Regarding the Rs. 3.60 crore transaction with M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the lender confirmed providing share application money, which the appellant accounted for as an unsecured loan. The AO's verification of the ledger account and the lender's financial documents, including a significant share premium reserve, supported the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no evidence to negate the transaction's genuineness and stated that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. Relying on CIT Vs. Fairfinvest Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessees' cross-objections were not explicitly decided but were implicitly allowed by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. Regarding the Rs. 3.60 crore transaction with M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the lender confirmed providing share application money, which the appellant accounted for as an unsecured loan. The AO's verification of the ledger account and the lender's financial documents, including a significant share premium reserve, supported the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no evidence to negate the transaction's genuineness and stated that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. Relying on CIT Vs. Fairfinvest Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessees' cross-objections were not explicitly decided but were implicitly allowed by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. Regarding the Rs. 3.60 crore transaction with M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the lender confirmed providing share application money, which the appellant accounted for as an unsecured loan. The AO's verification of the ledger account and the lender's financial documents, including a significant share premium reserve, supported the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no evidence to negate the transaction's genuineness and stated that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. Relying on CIT Vs. Fairfinvest Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessees' cross-objections were not explicitly decided but were implicitly allowed by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. Regarding the Rs. 3.60 crore transaction with M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the lender confirmed providing share application money, which the appellant accounted for as an unsecured loan. The AO's verification of the ledger account and the lender's financial documents, including a significant share premium reserve, supported the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no evidence to negate the transaction's genuineness and stated that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. Relying on CIT Vs. Fairfinvest Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessees' cross-objections were not explicitly decided but were implicitly allowed by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. Regarding the Rs. 3.60 crore transaction with M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the lender confirmed providing share application money, which the appellant accounted for as an unsecured loan. The AO's verification of the ledger account and the lender's financial documents, including a significant share premium reserve, supported the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no evidence to negate the transaction's genuineness and stated that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. Relying on CIT Vs. Fairfinvest Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessees' cross-objections were not explicitly decided but were implicitly allowed by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed without extensive marshaling of facts and evidence, making additions without a proper breakup of amounts pertaining to different family members and even including amounts from the bank account of the assessee's wife, who is an independent taxpayer. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's order to be non-speaking and lacking independent inquiries. Similarly, the CIT(A)'s order was found to suffer from a violation of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to comment on the remand report. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, considering their direct connection to the controversy, particularly regarding agricultural income as the source of cash deposits. Due to these procedural infirmities and the need for proper adjudication of facts, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order and provide opportunities for hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. Regarding the Rs. 3.60 crore transaction with M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the lender confirmed providing share application money, which the appellant accounted for as an unsecured loan. The AO's verification of the ledger account and the lender's financial documents, including a significant share premium reserve, supported the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no evidence to negate the transaction's genuineness and stated that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion alone. Relying on CIT Vs. Fairfinvest Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessees' cross-objections were not explicitly decided but were implicitly allowed by the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed without extensive marshaling of facts and evidence, making additions without a proper breakup of amounts pertaining to different family members and even including amounts from the bank account of the assessee's wife, who is an independent taxpayer. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's order to be non-speaking and lacking independent inquiries. Similarly, the CIT(A)'s order was found to suffer from a violation of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to comment on the remand report. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, considering their direct connection to the controversy, particularly regarding agricultural income as the source of cash deposits. Due to these procedural infirmities and the need for proper adjudication of facts, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order and provide opportunities for hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the aggregation of debit and credit entries. It held that a mechanical approach of adding both sides of a running ledger account is flawed and leads to double taxation. The Tribunal reasoned that the peak credit or net difference represents the actual unexplained quantum. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the gross addition of Rs. 1,37,32,990/- and restrict the addition to the net difference of Rs. 14,42,350/-. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 4,11,990/- under Section 69C was also proportionately reduced to the net difference amount. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal acknowledged that accommodation entries were entered into, but since the debit entry represented the credit entry of the preceding year and the differential amount of Rs. 14,42,350/- was upheld for that year, no separate addition was required. The addition for AY 2017-18 was deleted, being telescoped into the addition made for the preceding year. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC. Therefore, the AO was directed to verify the claim and allow FTC after accepting Form 67.

The Tribunal held that GST refund is a return of tax paid and not income, as GST is a statutory levy collected on behalf of the government. The refund cannot be taxed if the GST component was not claimed as a deduction in the Profit & Loss account.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 05.09.2023 and the subsequent assessment order, issued after 01.04.2021, were bad in law and quashed them. Grounds 3 to 12 were left open as academic.

The Tribunal held that the right to a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a fundamental right of every taxpayer. It noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications for registration under section 12A and 80G on the premise of non-supply of requisite documents and a perceived failure to substantively reply to show cause notices regarding the genuineness of charitable activities. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and alluded to a non-application of mind. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with all statutory notices, with non-compliance to be viewed adversely. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal is hearing an appeal by the assessee against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The case pertains to the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not connected to the satisfaction recorded for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The cash withdrawal mentioned in the satisfaction note did not have a bearing on the total income, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's justification for the delay to be adequate and unintentional, acknowledging that no litigant benefits from intentionally delaying their own matters. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer had passed an appeal effect order on 18.02.2025, deleting the additions made in the order under Section 144/147. Consequently, there was no concealed income available for penalty on the date the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed (03.03.2025). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.17,62,147/-. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal considered the affidavits filed by the assessee, noting his lack of conversance with tax laws and dependence on professionals. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/-. The ratio decidendi for the Section 271(1)(c) penalty is that penalty cannot be levied when the basis for the penalty (concealed income) ceases to exist due to subsequent favorable appellate orders. For the Section 271(1)(b) penalty, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 05.09.2023 and the subsequent assessment order, issued after 01.04.2021, were bad in law and quashed them. Grounds 3 to 12 were left open as academic.

The Tribunal observed that the AO made the addition based on a difference in bills raised by the assessee and recorded by the parties. The assessee provided explanations, including credit notes, TDS, and GST amounts, along with reconciliation statements and supporting documents. However, these facts remained unverified by the AO during the assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue of the addition of INR 1,48,49,064/- back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the reconciliation statements filed by the assessee for M/s Al-Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Mersel Foods Pvt. Ltd. The assessee is further directed to provide all necessary details and evidence, such as invoices, credit/debit notes, and TDS certificates, to reconcile the differences. The AO is to decide the issue in accordance with the law after verification. Grounds of appeal related to this issue were allowed for statistical purposes. Other grounds were rendered academic.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed without extensive marshaling of facts and evidence, making additions without a proper breakup of amounts pertaining to different family members and even including amounts from the bank account of the assessee's wife, who is an independent taxpayer. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's order to be non-speaking and lacking independent inquiries. Similarly, the CIT(A)'s order was found to suffer from a violation of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to comment on the remand report. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, considering their direct connection to the controversy, particularly regarding agricultural income as the source of cash deposits. Due to these procedural infirmities and the need for proper adjudication of facts, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order and provide opportunities for hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the assessee's claim of not receiving notice was supported by evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the approval for reopening under Section 151(2) was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was granted based on vague information and a mechanical exercise of power, lacking a live nexus to the seized material. The notice and approval did not exhibit supporting material linking the seized documents to the escapement of income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, considering the merits and law, and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s previous order was set aside due to procedural issues regarding notice service and opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, considering the merits and law, and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s previous order was set aside due to procedural issues regarding notice service and opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 387 days and 660 days in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's justification of a bona fide misunderstanding of procedural requirements to be adequate. The Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation and acknowledged that no litigant benefits from intentionally delaying their own matters. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G without due consideration of the facts on record, indicating a non-application of mind. The Tribunal found that the rejection was purely on account of non-compliance, and that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a right of every taxpayer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to comply with all statutory notices, with any non-compliance to be viewed adversely. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not explicitly state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devi Chand Vs. UOI and various coordinate bench decisions, clearly lay down that a jurisdictional notice under section 148 should be issued only by the Assessing Officer (AO) with whom jurisdiction has been vested by the Board. The Tribunal found that the defect in assumption of jurisdiction due to violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 is not curable. Consequently, the Tribunal sustained the ground raised in the assessee's cross objection. The assessment orders were quashed. As a consequential effect, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application on a technical ground without considering the charitable nature of the assessee's activities was not appropriate. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues have been decided by coordinate benches. In the case of Prachin Shri Agarwal Digambar Jain Panchayat, the Tribunal held that timelines for filing Form 10AB under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory, not mandatory, especially considering the transitional nature of amendments. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Aalayam, where it was held that applications filed after the due date could be considered under clause (iv) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5), which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2024. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be identical to these precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the assessee's delayed application as having been filed under clause (iv) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) and decide the matter on merits. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, with the assessee to be granted due opportunities of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the expenses were indeed recorded in the 'repair and maintenance' ledger account and payments were made through banking channels. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee was defective as it did not state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were deemed invalid.