ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that while the requirement of Form 10IC is mandatory, considering the technical glitches and the bonafide attempt of the assessee, the impugned order should be set aside. The assessee is directed to file Form 10IC within one month, and the CPC is directed to open the window for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that the "impugned order" was not proper. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee became aware of the intimation order only upon receiving a demand recovery notice. The matter was remanded to the AO to decide the issue of service of the intimation order and then treat the Section 154 application appropriately.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Considering the circumstances and the request of the Ld. DR, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and submissions from both parties, remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee came to know about the intimation order only upon receipt of the demand recovery notice. Therefore, the rectification application was filed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted that the e-filing period was extended and the appeal was filed within the extended timeline. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's illiteracy and lack of understanding of tax procedures, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution. Considering the submissions and the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal restored both the assessment and penalty matters to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the revenue conceded to the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had mistakenly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on an incorrect understanding of the VSV Scheme application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that there was sufficient cause due to the illness of the previous counsel. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable. This was because the income was surrendered during a survey and not a search, and the penalty notice was also defective as it did not specify the limb of the section under which the penalty was being levied.

The Tribunal held that Section 139(4A) mandates furnishing a return only if the total income exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Since the assessee's income did not exceed this limit, there was no obligation to furnish a return, thus no failure and no penalty attracted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report is a procedural irregularity and not a fatal defect. Citing various judicial precedents, it was decided that the assessee should not be denied the legitimate exemption solely due to a procedural lapse, especially when the audit report was available and subsequently filed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not meritorious and set it aside, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and a cost was imposed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed with too short a time for the assessee to plead their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a denovo hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances explained. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee had collected all relevant details and was ready to represent the case properly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice, and admitted the appeal for hearing. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not meritorious. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

अधिकरण ने माना कि वर्तमान मामले में विवादाधीन मुद्दों का कर प्रभाव 25,000/- रुपये है, जो सीबीडीटी द्वारा निर्धारित 60 लाख रुपये की सीमा से काफी कम है। इसलिए, परिपत्र के अनुसार विभाग को यह अपील दाखिल नहीं करनी चाहिए थी।

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The Authorized Representative requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the departmental representative. Accordingly, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals were filed during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the assessee could not participate in hearings due to communication issues. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed and the assessee had not been afforded proper opportunity. The revenue did not object to restoring the appeals.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and ensuring an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the orders were passed ex-parte and that the principle of natural justice was not followed. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not participate in the first appeal proceedings due to technical issues with their email. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The CIT(A) had examined the recasted books of accounts and found that the sales figures were net of discounts, and once these discounts were added back, the discrepancy disappeared. The AO's extrapolation of a single month's discrepancy to the entire year was not justified.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was directed to participate actively.

The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matters. The appeals were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions for the AO to grant a hearing opportunity and the assessee to participate diligently.