ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal noted that the income computation was not determined on merits by the lower authorities. Considering the assessee's nature of business and recent submission of documents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order *de novo*, providing the assessee a full opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits with documentary evidence, with an admonition for future compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the non-compliance, the Tribunal considered the assessee's status as an agriculturist unaware of tax procedures. Given that the quantum assessment was set aside and would recommence de novo, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the penalty order to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte and not on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on a de novo basis, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was non-speaking and unreasoned. The CIT(A) had not considered all the grounds and submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The assessment order and the subsequent CIT(A) order were deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice was indeed vague because it did not specify the exact charge, which is a legal requirement. Relying on the jurisdictional Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Kulwant Singh Bhatia, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings initiated on such a defective notice were illegal and could not be sustained. The Tribunal also distinguished the cases cited by the Revenue, finding them inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeal, and set aside the impugned ex-parte order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, as the original order was passed without a proper hearing on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees failed to provide evidence for booking cancellations and refunds to the AO. The CIT(A) accepted these claims without proper verification. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable and decided to remand the case back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessment nor the first appeal delved into the case's merits due to the assessee's non-appearance and delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost to the 'PM Relief Fund' and cooperate with the revenue. Both quantum and penalty appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order by the CIT(A) did not properly examine the merits of the case, and the assessee, despite the opportunities provided, could not fully utilize them due to specific circumstances. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that both the original assessment and the first appellate order did not examine the merits of the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5000 into the 'PM Relief Fund'. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the statutory due dates is valid, even if paid before the filing of the return. However, acknowledging a mistake in the calculation of the disallowance, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the correct figure of Rs. 6,80,957/-, granting partial relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the sales by providing documentation and that the revenue failed to establish a malicious nexus between the seller and buyer. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on presumptions rather than conclusive evidence.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the substantial grounds raised by the assessee challenging the legality of the proceedings, the Tribunal decided to restore the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) were meritorious and required adjudication. Since both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to appear. However, the Tribunal also found that the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) were meritorious and required proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) were meritorious and required proper adjudication. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that deductions for employee contributions to PF/ESI can only be claimed if they are deposited before the statutory due dates, regardless of when the return is filed. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the non-compliance and non-representation of the assessee. However, the grounds raised by the assessee were considered meritorious and required proper adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that neither the assessment order nor the impugned order examined the merits of the case. Considering the peculiar facts involving capital gains calculation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances are justified as the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. has clearly ruled that for claiming deduction, employee contributions to PF/ESI must be deposited on or before the statutory due dates, irrespective of the assessment procedure (143(1) or 143(3)). The argument regarding the limited jurisdiction of Section 143(1) was also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of the difference in income was justified due to a technical glitch in filing the return. However, the issue of unexplained capital investment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with copies of documents relied upon and not allowing cross-examination of the key witness, Shri Dilip Gupta.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to correct the technical error. The Tribunal emphasized that the substance of the application is more important than minor form errors.

अपील विलंब को तर्कसंगत आधार पर माफ कर दिया गया। निर्धारिती ने 'प्रत्यक्ष कर विवाद से विश्वास योजना, 2024' के तहत आवेदन करने के कारण वर्तमान अपील वापस लेने की अनुमति मांगी, जिसे स्वीकार कर लिया गया।