ITAT Guwahati Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to file an application under Rule 46A for submitting additional documents. Considering the assessment was completed ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the assessee's submissions and that the facts were not properly established by the AO, indicating a potential miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the expenses claimed under repair & maintenance, software development, loss on sale of fixed assets, telephone expenses, local conveyance, tour & travels, office expenses, and vehicle running expenses were allowable. The late fee on GST payment was also held to be compensatory and not disallowable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's medical condition as a valid and sufficient reason for non-compliance. Both the quantum matter (ITA No. 33/Gty/2025) and the penalty matter (ITA No. 34/Gty/2025) were remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to first adjudicate on the legal issues concerning the assumption of jurisdiction, and thereafter on the merits if necessary.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the distinct nature of the assessee's multiple businesses and their differing profit margins. It observed that facts regarding these separate business segments were not clearly presented or appreciated during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee a full opportunity to present all relevant documents and be heard.

The Tribunal, with the consent of the DR, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the appeals on their merits.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G. The CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing fresh orders, setting aside the previous rejection orders.

The Tribunal held that the mere non-filing of a return under Section 139(4C) cannot be the sole reason to deny exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), as filing such a return is not a mandatory condition for claiming this exemption. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for re-examination of the exemption claim and the surplus shown, also directing the AO to consider the provisions of section 234F.