Loading ITAT cases…
776 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 776 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the impugned order should be set aside. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and bearing in mind the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the case at the AO's level. The remand is subject to the assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, the receipt of which must be submitted to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order after considering the assessee's submissions, without being influenced by the previous order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the AO is at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) should not have been dismissed as non-maintainable. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee admitted to possessing both PANs (LBTPK8441A and ACPPK3556Q) but had subsequently surrendered the first PAN and was operating with the second. Therefore, filing the first appeal with the active PAN (ACPPK3556Q) was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that both PANs belonged to the same assessee-individual. Considering the principles of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing, consider the submissions, and pass an appropriate order without being influenced by the previous order. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal clarified that the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits under Section 250(6) and not treat it as non-maintainable. The department was granted liberty to take appropriate action regarding the holding of two PANs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay due to non-service of notices at the correct email address. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that the assessment order was passed under Section 144, and the assessee claimed their submissions were not properly considered. The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing, consider the assessee's submissions, and pass an appropriate order without being influenced by the previous order. The assessee was directed to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity for hearing and consider a condonation application from the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's illness and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal also restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to alleged errors in the ex-parte assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the 747-day delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 747-day delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely due to non-compliance without examining the merits of the deductions under Sections 54F and 54B. The matter is restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit evidence, while also imposing costs of ₹5,000/- for repeated non-cooperation.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee, including the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment and first appellate proceedings were largely based on alleged non-compliance without proper examination of evidence. Substantial jurisdictional and factual issues were raised, requiring proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Registration under Section 12AB is a substantive matter, and denial without a fair chance to present information violates natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the explanation and supporting documents for the opening cash balance were not examined in depth during assessment and appellate proceedings. Finding that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate the opening cash balance, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of a "sufficient cause" for the delay, referencing Section 253(5) of the Act and a Supreme Court judgment on prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeal, and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Delay in filing this form cannot be a ground to deny the substantive claim of foreign tax credit.
The ITAT condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order for not admitting additional evidence and for failing to pass a meritorious order, remanding the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, finding that the assessee had a plausible reply and granting one opportunity was insufficient. The CIT(E) was directed to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had demonstrated "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed a detailed reply with evidence before the CIT(A)-II, Indore, which was likely missed by the CIT(A), NFAC, due to the migration of the case to the faceless system. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, dismissing the appeal on the footing of non-prosecution was deemed incorrect. Given that the AO had also passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 for non-representation, and both parties agreed, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass an order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to cooperate and ensure participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 343 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing a genuine communication lapse by her tax consultant. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. On merits, the Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the submissions of both parties, remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass a meritorious order after considering the assessee's submissions. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee fulfilled conditions (i) and (ii) of Section 271AAA(2), the fulfillment of condition (iii) (payment of tax and interest) was crucial. The penalty on the admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 17,00,000/- was not sustainable due to belated payment, and the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding that the assessee had committed a bona fide and inadvertent error and there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-representation. Similar to previously remanded cases, the present matters were also remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.
The tribunal found the assessee's appeal seriously defective, as it conflicted with the nature of the order appealed before the CIT(A) (assessment vs. penalty). Additionally, the appeal form was unsigned, contained conflicting details, and the assessee failed to appear before any of the tax authorities. The tribunal dismissed the appeal *in limine* without adjudicating on merits, granting the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal or a rectification application u/s 254(2).
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient reason explained by the assessee for the non-compliance and agreed to restore the case to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding that the assessee had committed a bona fide and inadvertent error and there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order granting the benefit of accumulation was valid and not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initially filed Form No. 9A mistakenly but rectified the error by filing Form No. 10 during the assessment proceedings, before the AO passed the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to numerous judicial pronouncements that hold that if the required form is available to the AO before the completion of assessment, the substantive benefit cannot be denied. Regarding the condonation of delay by the CBDT under Section 119, the Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT, which held that the application under Section 119(2)(b) is an additional remedy and not compulsorily resortable. The Tribunal found that the Ld. DR could not controvert the judicial approach favouring the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the CIT(E) and restored the original assessment order passed by the AO. The assessee succeeded in the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored all appeals (assessment and penalty) to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, directing the CIT(A) to first decide on the condonation of delay after granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. Due to consistent non-compliance, the assessee was also directed to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present her case on merits due to the substantial quantum of additions and the need for factual examination.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of ₹10,000/- on the assessee for the litigation and wastage of judicial time.
The Tribunal restored all appeals (assessment and penalty) to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, directing the CIT(A) to first decide on the condonation of delay after granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. Due to consistent non-compliance, the assessee was also directed to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal restored all appeals (assessment and penalty) to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, directing the CIT(A) to first decide on the condonation of delay after granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. Due to consistent non-compliance, the assessee was also directed to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was a 'sufficient cause' for the delay and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The appeals were then remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the relief requested by the assessee in the appeal had already been granted by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the present appeal. The departmental representative had no objection.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, taking into account the assessee's averments and the settled law that technical aspects should not impede substantial justice, citing Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the AO had made a protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- for AY 2016-17, which was connected to a substantive addition of the same amount for AY 2017-18. The matter for AY 2017-18 had already been remanded by the ITAT to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Recognizing this connection, a consensus was reached that the present appeal should also be remanded. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a hearing opportunity to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and participate in hearings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the matter required revisiting by the CIT(A) and passing a meritorious order in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the potential communication gap due to the transition from the physical to the faceless regime and the short notice for hearings. The Learned Authorized Representative acknowledged the assessee's readiness to make a proper representation. The Tribunal, in view of the facts, submissions, and the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant, submit all required documents, and participate in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Revenue's representative agreed with the prayer for remand. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 185 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' due to his serious health condition and hospitalization, supported by medical reports. The Tribunal referred to Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over technicalities. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. This decision was based on the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the "Prime Minister Relief Fund" and submit the receipt to the AO. The AO was instructed to provide a hearing opportunity and pass an order uninfluenced by previous orders. The assessee was further directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO could pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.