ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the 'impugned order' must be set aside. The case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis, allowing the assessee to refile contentions and arguments.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with an opportunity of being heard due to notices not being sent to the correct email address. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence, including corrected financials and a confirmation ledger, without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine them or calling for a specific report. The Ld.CIT(A) did not follow the procedure under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order did not examine the merits of the case and the assessee could not avail the opportunity of hearing due to bonafide reasons. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order had not examined the merits of the case as required by law and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct proper inquiries regarding the applicability of Section 14A concerning exempt income, showing a non-application of mind. Consequently, the PCIT was legally justified in remanding the matter for re-examination.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the departmental representative did not object to the request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the current appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be free to recall the order if its application under the scheme was rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have no taxable income and thus no obligation to pay advance tax, making the CIT(A)'s reliance on Section 249(4)(b) incorrect. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to properly apply their mind and demonstrate that material facts were not disclosed during the original assessment. The AO also accepted the genuineness of most purchases but disallowed a portion due to non-submission of bills, which was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee did not wish to pursue it, having applied under the 'Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Yojana, 2024'. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could seek recall if their application under the scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the genuine cause shown by the assessee due to the death of the original assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on a denovo basis, providing one last opportunity to the legal heir to present the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the merits of the case and that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the departmental representative did not object. The assessee was also granted the liberty to recall the order if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without the assessee making submissions, despite opportunities given over several years and a delay due to the pandemic. Considering principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without complying with Section 250(6) and without proper adherence to principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the contingent liability was not debited to the assessee's Profit and Loss account but was merely disclosed in the notes to accounts and the audit report, its disallowance by the CPC was not sustainable.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the assessee's repeated adjournment requests, which constituted non-prosecution. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and directing the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate, arising from negligence and lack of due diligence. The reasons provided in the affidavit were found to be insufficient and factually incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one last opportunity to explain the delay of 1222 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee was allowed to file a condonation of delay application which would be heard and decided on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the departmental representative did not oppose it. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee can file a recall application if their scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 10(23C)(iiiad), the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution should be considered separately, not clubbed together. Since the receipts of each individual institution were below Rs. 1 crore, the assessee was eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act due to non-compliance by the assessee. However, the assessee submitted 12 new documents before the Tribunal that were not produced before the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, considering all the material.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. It noted that the assessee has the liberty to recall the order if their application under the scheme is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's request for adjournment due to old documents. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, based on the consent of both parties.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the revenue did not object. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal as per the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and does not wish to pursue the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the department did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.