ITAT Indore Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not provide explanation, in the interest of justice, another opportunity should be given. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to submit documentary evidence.

tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of these appeals, stating that the assessee has fulfilled the requirements under the scheme and paid the due amounts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was due to reasonable cause. Subsequently, the assessee expressed no intention to pursue the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and submitted the required forms.

The Tribunal held that the issue of long-term capital gain requires verification with documentary evidence. The Tribunal allowed one more opportunity to the assessee and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the assessee's participation in the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for by the assessee.

निर्धारिती ने 'प्रत्यक्ष कर विवाद से विश्वास योजना, 2024' के तहत आवेदन किया है और वह वर्तमान अपील का अनुसरण करने का इच्छुक नहीं है। इसलिए, अपील को वापस लिए जाने की अनुमति दी गई और इसी कारण से खारिज कर दिया गया।

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals, noting that the assessee is free to seek recall of the order if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without a proper hearing. While the cash deposit requires satisfactory explanation, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed another opportunity for the assessee to explain the source of funds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had participated in the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" and requested the appeal to be dismissed. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee did not wish to pursue it, having applied under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, noting that the assessee is no longer pursuing these appeals due to participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the dues. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could seek recall if the application under the scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the current appeal as they have opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object, and thus the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit cannot be categorized as unexplained money, as it was utilized for making payments on behalf of students. However, since complete details were not provided, the Tribunal estimated the income element at Rs. 50,000 on the alleged sum.

अपीलों का अनुसरण करने में निर्धारिती की अनिच्छा को ध्यान में रखते हुए, तथा विभागीय प्रतिनिधि द्वारा विरोध न किए जाने पर, निर्धारिती को अपीलें वापस लेने की अनुमति दी गई।

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The notice u/s 148 was found to be valid as it was issued within 6 years and with prior approval. However, due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence for the cash deposits, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits of surplus funds, not immediately required for lending to members, is attributable to its business activity and eligible for deduction under Section 80P. It directed the AO to allow deduction on such interest income and related expenditure.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it did not comply with Section 250(6) by failing to state points for determination, the decision, and reasons. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to actively participate.

The Tribunal quashed the earlier assessment proceedings (ITA No. 637/Ind/2024) which were based on a Section 148 notice dated 31.03.2021, citing the Supreme Court's Ashish Agarwal judgment regarding the validity of such notices. For the appeal on merits (ITA No. 634/Ind/2024), the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the Rs. 11,00,000/- cash deposit to be satisfactory and deleted the addition made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) passed an order without proper examination of the merits. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated were bad in law and quashed the earlier assessment order. The addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit was deleted as the assessee successfully explained the source.

अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण ने पाया कि निर्धारिती को उचित सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया था और एक-पक्षीय आदेश पारित किया गया था। इसलिए, न्यायाधिकरण ने आयकर आयुक्त (अपील) के आदेश को अपास्त करते हुए मामले को पुनर्विचार के लिए वापस भेज दिया।

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal, after hearing both parties, agreed that the appellant was denied a proper opportunity and the CIT(A)'s order was passed without examining the merits, which is not just. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case is remitted back to the CIT(A) with directions to grant a proper hearing, examine the case on its merits, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law, with the appellant also directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be cogent. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and quashed the order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee retains the right to recall the order if their "Vivad se Vishwas" application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed the order without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without examining the merits. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal, adhering to natural justice, decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh, de novo adjudication. It instructed the appellant to cooperate by attending future hearings and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Yojana. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper hearing and the CIT(A) decided the cases without considering the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and fair procedure, decided to set aside the ex-parte order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 60 lakhs. The present appeal's tax effect was Rs. 9,54,810/-, which is below the revised limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not justified as it was passed without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the order.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing, considering principles of natural justice. The assessee was also directed to participate in the hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the alleged sum cannot be categorized as unexplained money and that only the income element can be estimated. Since the assessee did not provide complete details for all transactions, the Tribunal estimated the income at Rs. 50,000/- on the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, providing partial relief.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence during the appellate proceedings, including ledger accounts, balance sheets, and confirmations, which established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The source of funds was also found to be established.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds and accumulated profits greater than the investment made, and there was no evidence that interest-bearing funds were specifically used for investment, the interest disallowance of Rs. 4,22,410/- was deleted, following the precedents of the Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity and the CIT(A) passed the order without examining the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate.

The tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 119(2)(b) is not maintainable before the ITAT, as Section 253(1) does not include such orders. The appeal was dismissed for being non-maintainable.

The tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the merits. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is granted a proper hearing opportunity.