ITAT Indore Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the impugned order should be set aside. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, finding that the assessee had a plausible reply and granting one opportunity was insufficient. The CIT(E) was directed to provide another opportunity.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee, including the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Registration under Section 12AB is a substantive matter, and denial without a fair chance to present information violates natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Delay in filing this form cannot be a ground to deny the substantive claim of foreign tax credit.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of a "sufficient cause" for the delay, referencing Section 253(5) of the Act and a Supreme Court judgment on prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeal, and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and first appellate proceedings were largely based on alleged non-compliance without proper examination of evidence. Substantial jurisdictional and factual issues were raised, requiring proper verification.

The Tribunal noted that the explanation and supporting documents for the opening cash balance were not examined in depth during assessment and appellate proceedings. Finding that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate the opening cash balance, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely due to non-compliance without examining the merits of the deductions under Sections 54F and 54B. The matter is restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit evidence, while also imposing costs of ₹5,000/- for repeated non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the 747-day delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to various reasons, including medical emergencies and demise of counsel, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The tribunal found the assessee's appeal seriously defective, as it conflicted with the nature of the order appealed before the CIT(A) (assessment vs. penalty). Additionally, the appeal form was unsigned, contained conflicting details, and the assessee failed to appear before any of the tax authorities. The tribunal dismissed the appeal *in limine* without adjudicating on merits, granting the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal or a rectification application u/s 254(2).

The Tribunal acknowledged that conditions (i) and (ii) of Section 271AAA(2) were fulfilled. Citing the Supreme Court decision in K. Krishnamurthy vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that belated payment of tax and interest satisfies condition (iii) of Section 271AAA(2) as no specific timeline is prescribed. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the Rs. 17,00,000/- component was deemed unsustainable, but the matter was remitted to the AO for factual verification of the payment's sufficiency.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty. The claim of depreciation, though disallowed, was considered a bona fide inadvertent error, especially since the assessee's income was exempt and the claim did not result in any tax benefit. The facts were found to be similar to the Price Waterhouse case, where penalty was not sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-representation. Similar to previously remanded cases, the present matters were also remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty. The claim for depreciation was considered a bona fide and inadvertent error, not an intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, especially since the assessee's income was exempt and the claim did not impact tax liability.

The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient reason explained by the assessee for the non-compliance and agreed to restore the case to the CIT(E) for adjudication afresh, providing the assessee with another opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of ₹10,000/- on the assessee for the litigation and wastage of judicial time.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that substantial additions were made and issues like Section 50C invocation require factual examination, thus deserving one final opportunity.

The Tribunal observed consistent non-compliance by the assessee but, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal (ITA No. 55/Ind/2025) to the CIT(A) to first decide on the condonation of delay and then for de-novo consideration on merits. The related penalty appeals (ITA No. 54/Ind/2025 and ITA No. 56/Ind/2025) were also restored for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund for consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee showed consistent non-compliance and non-appearance at all stages. While restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, it directed the CIT(A) to first decide on the condonation of delay. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored all appeals (assessment and penalty) to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, directing the CIT(A) to first decide on the condonation of delay after granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. Due to consistent non-compliance, the assessee was also directed to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had 'sufficient cause' based on the presented affidavit and supporting documents, supported by legal precedents emphasizing substantial justice. The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The Tribunal noted that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were then remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to participate diligently.

The Tribunal acknowledged the reasons for delay as sufficient cause, citing the principle of substantial justice and a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay, admit the appeals, and remand the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was a 'sufficient cause' for the delay and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The appeals were then remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the relief requested by the assessee in the appeal had already been granted by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the present appeal. The departmental representative had no objection.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's mother's illness. The Tribunal noted a significant mistake in the AO's 100% disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) as the amended provision for the relevant AY prescribed only a 30% disallowance. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's representative and the Revenue's representative agreed that the impugned order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remanded. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the case for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished bills for the purchase of Kapas from agriculturists/cultivators from Mandi. Based on this, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition and granting relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and failed to provide necessary documentation or submissions during appellate proceedings. The Tribunal held that the appeal was premature in challenging penalty proceedings and that the grounds regarding the AO's jurisdiction and the disallowance of exemptions lacked merit based on the factual analysis.