ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings were vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a defective show-cause notice, which fails to specify the grounds for penalty, renders the penalty imposed bad-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and set aside the orders of penalty. The Tribunal also noted that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings were vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a defective show-cause notice, which fails to specify the grounds for penalty, renders the penalty imposed bad-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and set aside the orders of penalty. The Tribunal also noted that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings were vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a defective show-cause notice, which fails to specify the grounds for penalty, renders the penalty imposed bad-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and set aside the orders of penalty. The Tribunal also noted that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings were vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a defective show-cause notice, which fails to specify the grounds for penalty, renders the penalty imposed bad-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and set aside the orders of penalty. The Tribunal also noted that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals, stating that the assessee has opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024." The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as such, and clarified that the assessee remains free to file a recall application if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals, stating that the assessee has opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024." The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as such, and clarified that the assessee remains free to file a recall application if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals, stating that the assessee has opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024." The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as such, and clarified that the assessee remains free to file a recall application if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals, stating that the assessee has opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024." The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as such, and clarified that the assessee remains free to file a recall application if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals, stating that the assessee has opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024." The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as such, and clarified that the assessee remains free to file a recall application if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals, stating that the assessee has opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024." The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as such, and clarified that the assessee remains free to file a recall application if their Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable because the penalty show-cause notices were vague and did not specify the grounds for imposing the penalty, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings were vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a defective show-cause notice, which fails to specify the grounds for penalty, renders the penalty imposed bad-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and set aside the orders of penalty. The Tribunal also noted that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable because the penalty show-cause notices were vague and did not specify the grounds for imposing the penalty, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings were vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a defective show-cause notice, which fails to specify the grounds for penalty, renders the penalty imposed bad-in-law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and set aside the orders of penalty. The Tribunal also noted that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable before the ITAT, Indore Bench. The Tribunal reasoned that it is a settled approach that the AO's situs determines the jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench, as per Explanation 4 to Standing Order dated 01/10/1997 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC). Since the ITAT, Indore Bench, does not have jurisdiction over Raipur, which was the situs of the AO who passed the original assessment order, the appeal is not maintainable. The Tribunal further clarified that even if the jurisdiction of the AO in Raipur was subsequently merged with the AO in Bhopal, the proper course for the AO in Bhopal would be to file the appeal before the appropriate Bench of the ITAT that holds jurisdiction over Raipur. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, granting liberty to the Revenue to institute it before an appropriate bench. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if it still considers the appeal maintainable before the Indore Bench. The merits of the case were not commented upon.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing, especially considering the pandemic period and incorrect email notices. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and incorrect email addresses used for notices. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee contended that they were not properly served notices and thus not given an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal, while setting aside the impugned order, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on a denovo basis, directing the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set-aside proceedings before the CIT(A), partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and incorrect service of notices. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, in this second round of appeals, is remanding the quantum appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This decision follows a previous ex-parte order by the ITAT that also remanded the matters.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities of hearing by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable before the ITAT, Indore Bench. The established practice, supported by Explanation 4 to the Standing Order and the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd., is that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench. Even if the jurisdiction of the Raipur AO was subsequently merged with the Bhopal AO, the proper course for the Bhopal AO would be to file the appeal before the ITAT Bench that exercises jurisdiction over Raipur. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, granting the Revenue leave to institute the appeal before the appropriate bench with jurisdiction over the AO who framed the impugned assessment. Liberty was also granted to the Revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if they believed the appeal was maintainable before the Indore Bench.

The Tribunal decided to remand all the substantive grounds of appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. Regarding Ground No. 3 (disallowance of interest of Rs. 6,92,650/- u/s 24(b)), the Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to have filed evidence, there was a discrepancy in the calculation of interest (2/3rd of Rs. 10,16,209/- being Rs. 6,77,473/- vs. claimed Rs. 6,92,650/-) and a lack of clear mention of the property in the loan documents. Therefore, a remand was deemed necessary for verification. For Ground No. 4 (disallowance of interest of Rs. 15,08,951/- u/s 24(b) and income estimation), the Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument for full verification of 'batai agreements' and the assessee's argument for inflation benefit in income estimation. Thus, this issue was also remanded. For Ground No. 6 (addition of Rs. 1,70,85,940/- u/s 69A as undisclosed investment), the assessee filed additional evidence. Both parties agreed to a remand for fresh adjudication considering this additional evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide full opportunity to the assessee for all remanded issues. Grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed as non-pressed.

The Tribunal noted that a consequential assessment order had been passed by the AO, accepting the original assessed income after re-examining the issues raised by the PCIT. This resolved the issues identified by the PCIT.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was held that the assessee is free to recall the order within the prescribed period if their application under the scheme is rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.