ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte and not based on merits. The Tribunal found that the cost of acquisition for Long Term Capital Gain was not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. It found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance during the pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for not imposing the penalty, especially considering the short notice period and the lack of timely document supply from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for non-compliance, primarily due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the short notice period given by the AO, exacerbated by the non-furnishing of necessary documents by the AO. The Tribunal relied on Section 273B and the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the short notice period. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not supply the required documents to the assessee, hindering their ability to comply.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, considering the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the short period given for compliance. The Tribunal also noted the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, aligning with the Supreme Court's extension of limitation orders. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's failure to supply necessary documents contributed to the non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the short notice period provided by the AO. The Supreme Court's extension of limitation orders were also considered relevant.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance by the assessee during the exceptional period of Covid-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for penalty relaxation under Section 273B. The Tribunal also noted the AO's failure to supply necessary documents, further supporting the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the first appeal based on non-payment of advance tax was incorrect as there was no obligation to pay advance tax. The Tribunal restored this appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal upheld the penalty in the second appeal, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the first appeal by the CIT(A) for non-payment of advance tax was incorrect as no advance tax was payable by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal upheld the penalty in the second appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for non-compliance insufficient.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not effectively prosecute the appeal and failed to provide cogent evidence. However, noting that the case was similar to another case (Radha Bai) which was remanded, and considering that new evidence was submitted, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to appear effectively and produce all required documents without seeking further adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order should be set aside to secure the ends of justice. The case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction for the assessee to participate effectively and produce all necessary documents without seeking further adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration. This was based on the assessee's expressed intent to pursue the appeal with sincerity and the agreement of both the Ld. AR and Ld. DR.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments, except for Rs. 41,730/- made on a Sunday, which was deleted. The disallowance of bad debts under Section 37 and the addition for unexplained advances under Section 68 were both remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present further evidence and receive necessary opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the AO's application of Section 69A and Section 115BBE was justified due to the assessee's failure to explain the nature and source of substantial cash deposits and withdrawals. The lower appellate authority's order was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not sustainable as the payment was made after banking hours on a Saturday, falling under an exception. The addition under Section 2(22)(e) was deleted as it was made in the hands of the assessee-company. The addition under Section 41(1) was deleted as the conditions were not satisfied. The disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) was also deleted as the assessee had sufficient own funds and the interest was on a car loan.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, and instructed the assessee to be vigilant and participate in all hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the main appeal against the assessment order was pending. Therefore, it held that the impugned rectification order should be set aside and the matter remanded. The CIT(A) was directed to first dispose of the main appeal against the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a deceased person is null and void, as the notice must be served on a living person. Therefore, all subsequent proceedings are also invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was bad in law for want of personal hearing. However, the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, which the assessee failed to avail. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh denovo assessment.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had conducted a meaningful discussion on the merits of the case. The dismissal was primarily due to the assessee's non-compliance, exacerbated by the death of its accountant.

अधिकरण ने पाया कि केंद्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड (सीबीडीटी) के नवीनतम परिपत्र के अनुसार, अधिकरण के समक्ष अपील दाखिल करने के लिए कर प्रभाव सीमा 60 लाख रुपये निर्धारित की गई है। वर्तमान मामले में, कर प्रभाव 40,60,140 रुपये है, जो निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case involving the assessee's brother, where exemption under section 54B was allowed. The Tribunal followed the decision in the brother's case and directed the AO to allow the exemption.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) subsequently passed a rectification order under Section 154, deleting the entire addition and granting full relief to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted full relief to the assessee through a subsequent rectification order, deleting the entire addition of 'notional interest income'. Therefore, the appeal became infructuous.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the present appeal as they had filed an application under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024". The department did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order failed to determine the real income of the assessee on merits and lacked proper opportunity for the assessee to explain. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that additional evidence was crucial and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to examine and verify these evidences on a denovo basis, considering the entire gamut of the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have made best efforts and was ready to submit further details. Agreeing with the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the non-compliance with notices but considered the impact of the Covid period. While Section 272A(1)(d) mandates a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each default, the Tribunal reduced the total penalty to Rs. 10,000/- for all seven non-compliances, taking into account the circumstances and the Covid period.

The ITAT identified two infirmities in the CIT(A)'s order: an incorrect finding that the assessee submitted only partial documents, and a lack of rationale for the 5% disallowance. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide further documents and instructing the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on technical grounds of non-submission of documents, despite the assessee later providing them. The Tribunal also noted that a formal application for additional evidence under Rule 29 is not strictly necessary and substantial justice should be done.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of non-compliance due to circumstances beyond her control and the failure of her tax consultants. Given the principle of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical grounds of non-filing of documents, despite the assessee later providing the required evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s order but decided to allow one more opportunity to the assessee.