ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documents uploaded by the assessee, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also found merit in the proposal to remand the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case was imposed on the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The Tribunal also found merit in the revenue's proposal to impose costs and remand the matters to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had disposed of the case on merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits, considering all evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the CESTAT had already set aside the findings and conclusions of the Excise Authorities regarding clandestine removal, the AO's action of reopening the assessment based on these set-aside findings was invalid. The CIT(A) was justified in quashing the AO's action.

The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delays under Section 253(5), citing the principle of substantial justice from *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*. It condoned the delays and remanded all appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding a sufficient cause. The appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per case, to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that since the original order was quashed by the ITAT, it became non-est, and a rectification order based on it could not be sustained. Consequently, the rectification order was also quashed.

The Tribunal, agreeing with the revenue's representative, observed that the vital documents were not submitted to the lower authorities and the assessee's submissions were incomplete. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee has secured registration under Section 12AB, the 80G application was rejected due to lack of documents. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on a denovo basis.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not imposable when disallowances are based on estimation or when the assessee has made complete disclosure and claimed expenditure in genuine belief of its revenue nature, even if the claim is debatable. The Tribunal noted that the AO made a generalized remark about capital nature expenses without specific instances and that no satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was recorded in the assessment order for AY 2012-13. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in law by dismissing the appeal without first determining the real income of the assessee and tax liability at the original assessment stage. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment on merits, ensuring full opportunity is provided to the assessee for correct determination of income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee's counsel, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue's representative concurred.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was ad hoc and based on estimation, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record specific satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order for AY 2012-13. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was approved.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and fair play, considering the submissions of both parties. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the unique circumstances of the assessee's death and the L/R's lack of awareness. It held that the CIT(A) orders were invalid as they were passed against a deceased assessee without the L/R on record and without meritorious adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Consequently, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after properly bringing the Legal Representative on record.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a reply was indeed filed and accepted the need to restore the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a hearing opportunity and pass an appropriate order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by remanding the matter. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the AO to provide proper hearing opportunities and for the assessee to remain vigilant and participate in future hearings.

The Tribunal noted that M/s Jay-Jyoti (India) Pvt. Ltd. has been consistently held by previous Tribunal orders not to be a paper or shell company. Following these precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the loan of Rs. 35 lakhs was not liable to be added to the assessee's income. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders were not based on merits and were in violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding the source of investment through unsecured loans from creditors lacked genuineness due to various suspicious circumstances. However, it was also held that the CIT(A) did not confront the adverse inferences drawn from the collated information to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the adverse inferences.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not decided on merits and constituted a violation of natural justice. It considered an affidavit from the assessee's former counsel, who admitted lapses that led to the significant delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both the quantum assessment and the consequential penalty issue (under Section 271(1)(c)) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis, to be completed within six months.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be bonafide. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not decide the case on merits and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee is free to recall the order if the application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the auditor's report clearly indicated stock degradation and valuation on a realizable basis. The Tribunal also noted that the bank had taken possession of the stock due to NPA, and the assessee had incurred significant accumulated losses, thus not creating any revenue loss.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for hearing. It noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity before the CIT(A) and that the impugned order was illegal and bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a denovo hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal after noting that the assessee was not willing to pursue the appeal due to the application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the departmental representative did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the "sufficient cause" presented by the assessee, citing her age, ill health, and illiteracy. The appeals were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue remedies under the Vivad se Vishwas Yojana. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee can file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing 'sufficient cause' under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act and the principle of substantial justice. The matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 1.39 crore addition related to sundry debtors, finding that the transfer was a mere journal entry supported by sufficient documentary evidence. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Rs. 10.50 lakh addition for stock, as the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the stock holding, thereby upholding the AO's addition for stock.