ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not meritorious. The assessee expressed a desire to participate in proceedings before the AO and undertook to comply with requisitions.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had subsequently granted the assessee registration under Sections 12AA/12AB for AY 2013-14 to 2024-25, covering the assessment years in appeal (2015-16 & 2016-17). Considering this altered position and with no objection from the revenue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment to correctly compute the total income, acknowledging the assessee's entitlements as a registered entity.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 2 and 19 days in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's changed status due to granted registration Under Section 12AA/12AB, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment to determine the correct total income, including all entitlements, and directed assistance for filing ITR-7 manually.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether disallowance under Section 43B is attracted when service tax is not debited to the P&L account is debatable. The Tribunal also noted that there was a lack of evidence regarding compliance with the first and second provisos to Section 143(1) regarding intimation and response to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that once the AO issues a notice under Section 143(2) for scrutiny assessment, he cannot subsequently assume jurisdiction to process the return under Section 143(1) for the same assessment year. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of all upward adjustments made in the Section 143(1) intimation, deeming it bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal. It found the assessee's explanations for Rs. 3,75,000 (PF/savings), Rs. 6,00,000 (wife's income), and Rs. 3,00,000 (father's agricultural income) to be satisfactorily proven. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted Rs. 10,00,000 of the original addition and sustained only Rs. 1,00,000 as unexplained.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee initially failed to provide documentary evidence and respond to notices. However, during the appellate stage, additional evidence in the form of affidavits and KYC details of persons involved in transactions was submitted. The Tribunal held that this new evidence requires examination and verification by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had demonstrated its registration for CSR activities with a valid registration number and that the donation was duly recorded. The assessee also undertook to provide all required information.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and that the assessee was making efforts to collect documents. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the source of the cash deposit as proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land. It noted that the land was not a capital asset under Section 2(14), making any gain exempt under Section 10(37), and alternatively, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54B due to reinvestment in another agricultural land. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 69A was not warranted.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after examining the assessee's evidences.

The tribunal, with the agreement of both parties and considering natural justice, remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide due opportunities to the assessee, who, in turn, must diligently participate and avoid adjournments, allowing the AO to pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by prior decisions.

The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after examining the assessee's evidences and granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's status as a 'charitable-cum-religious' entity. It found merit in the claim for benefit under Section 80G(5B) and agreed to remand the matter to the CIT(E) for a deeper analysis of expenses.

The Tribunal noted that the department had mistakenly filed a duplicate appeal and that it was infructuous. Both parties agreed that the duplicate appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on a liberal and justice-oriented approach, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for necessary adjudication, given the CIT(A) did not decide on merits and the AO made a best judgment assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable in this case as the assessee had no obligation to pay advance tax since there was no taxable income. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the death of the previous counsel and communication issues. The appeals were then remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the 1,100-day delay, finding 'sufficient cause' based on the reasons provided by the assessee's AR and applying Section 253(5) and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing and is directed to remain vigilant.

The Tribunal observed that the transaction involved the assessee giving a loan, not receiving it as income. The Tribunal noted that the initial loan given by the assessee to Amit Singhania was Rs. 5 lakhs, and the repayment received was Rs. 5.25 lakhs, with the excess being interest. The Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly treated the loan given as income in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance during the exceptional period of Covid-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not supply necessary documents to the assessee, further supporting the reasonable cause.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the short notice period. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide necessary documents, contributing to the non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued for compliance, including the show cause notice for penalty, were all issued during the COVID-19 period, a time of national lockdown. It was considered impossible for the assessee to comply with these notices under such circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee had already offered the profit from the F&O transactions in its audited P&L account. The AO's addition was therefore a double addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no error or perversity in the order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition, as it amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the F&O transactions were already offered for taxation in AY 2016-17 and accepted by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO resulted in double addition, as the assessee had already offered the profit from the F&O transactions in its audited P&L account. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted substantial relief by restricting the addition to the profit element of the bogus purchases, following a High Court judgment. The assessee's AR stated they had no further major grievances.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- as the assessee failed to deduct TDS on a payment made in the current AY. However, the disallowance of Rs. 9,00,000/- was deleted because the land purchase transaction and initial payment were completed before Section 194-IA became effective, despite the final payment clearance occurring later.