Loading ITAT cases…
663 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2026.
Showing 40 of 663 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. It only states the facts and the issues raised by the appeals. Therefore, the findings on each issue, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this portion of the judgment. No part of the judgment has been expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated 28.03.2017 issued under section 148 by the ITO-3(4), Indore, was wholly without jurisdiction. The assessee had raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the ITO-3(4), Indore, by letters dated 14.04.2017 and 09.05.2017, questioning his authority as the return of income was filed with the ITO, Ward-2, Ratlam, who was the competent jurisdictional officer. These objections were raised within the time frame provided under section 124(3) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that when an assessee questions the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, the officer is required to refer the matter for determination under section 124(4) and 124(2) before making an assessment. The ITO-3(4), Indore, failed to follow this procedure and instead transferred the case, which was an irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the notice was issued without valid jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on this limited ground, and the merits of the case were not examined. The Tribunal also affirmed that objections regarding jurisdiction must be made within the time limit prescribed under section 124(3), as per the decision in DIT(Exemption) v/s Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The AO made the addition based on the statement of Shri Sharad Darak recorded by the Investigation Wing in other cases. However, apart from this statement, the AO did not produce any independent material to demonstrate that the loan transactions were not genuine or were the assessee's own undisclosed income routed back. The CIT(A) had examined the documents submitted by the assessee, including bank statements, ITRs, and ledger confirmations, and noted the substantial net worth of the two lending companies as of 31.03.2013 (East West Finvest Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 135.97 crores and Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 114.96 crores). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the evidence and deleted the additions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also addressed the reopening under section 147 and found it to be valid. The Tribunal ultimately held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions made by the AO, as the AO had failed to bring on record sufficient material to disprove the genuineness of the loan transactions beyond the statement of Shri Sharad Darak, which was not corroborated by independent evidence in the assessee's case. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that both the Impugned Assessment Order and the Impugned Order of the CIT(A) were not decided on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the total income to be computed and assessed on a real-time basis in accordance with law and due process. The Tribunal expected the assessee to be compliant and cooperate with the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for passing a fresh order on merits. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the first appeal, and the delay was not abnormal, thus the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and decided it on merits. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee, payable to the PM Relief Fund, for failure to provide a plausible reason for non-compliance before the lower authorities, directing the assessee to show proof of payment to the AO before de novo adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that nothing in Section 12A or 12AB bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The ITAT's previous order dated 06.02.2024 did not examine the genuineness of activities but was based on the Assessee not pursuing the earlier application, thus settling the fate of that specific application but not the facts on which it was based. The impugned order, therefore, proceeded on a wrong premise. Regarding genuineness, the CIT(E)'s findings were considered unresolved queries. Deficiencies like missing ledgers, beneficiary details, and bills were capable of being cured. The Tribunal noted that the enquiry was compressed, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the applications dated 30.09.2025 (for registration) and 27.11.2025 (for 80G approval) were restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E) was given a free hand to examine all aspects, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which the Tribunal expressed no opinion. The observation regarding cancellation of provisional registration was also set aside. The grounds of appeal were allowed to this extent.
The Tribunal held that nothing in Section 12A or 12AB bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The ITAT's previous order dated 06.02.2024 did not examine the genuineness of activities but was based on the Assessee not pursuing the earlier application, thus settling the fate of that specific application but not the facts on which it was based. The impugned order, therefore, proceeded on a wrong premise. Regarding genuineness, the CIT(E)'s findings were considered unresolved queries. Deficiencies like missing ledgers, beneficiary details, and bills were capable of being cured. The Tribunal noted that the enquiry was compressed, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the applications dated 30.09.2025 (for registration) and 27.11.2025 (for 80G approval) were restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E) was given a free hand to examine all aspects, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which the Tribunal expressed no opinion. The observation regarding cancellation of provisional registration was also set aside. The grounds of appeal were allowed to this extent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding non-service of notices due to an incorrect email address could not be accepted solely based on a subsequent update of the email address on the income-tax portal. The validity of service must be examined with reference to the email address furnished in Form No. 35 and departmental records at the time of issuance. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal primarily due to the assessee's failure to respond and furnish evidence, without adequately deciding the grounds of appeal as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish all relevant documentary evidence, and the CIT(A) was instructed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and examining any additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no finding was recorded on the merits of the addition, leaving all substantive issues open for the CIT(A)'s consideration.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, allowed the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel had requested permission to withdraw the appeal due to the inadvertent filing of two appeals against the same order. The revenue's representative had no objection to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. It noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to ₹60 lakh. The tax effect in the present appeal was ₹28,540, which is below the prescribed limit. The Tribunal observed that the case did not fall under any exception clause mentioned in the circular. Therefore, the Revenue was not expected to pursue this appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on preliminary grounds without delving into the merits of the case. However, it clarified that the Revenue is at liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the case falls under an exception clause.
The Tribunal held that the "Impugned Order" passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law, illegal, and not proper. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made exhaustive written submissions with necessary proof of acknowledgment on 29.01.2011, which were not adequately considered by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had erred in observing that the appellant failed to submit documents to support the genuineness of the loan, despite the assessee providing such documentation. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified by any reasons and was effectively rebutted by the assessee before both the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the loan taken was repaid with interest, and this fact was recorded in the books of account and remained unrebutted. The Tribunal emphasized that it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to consider all submissions of the assessee. The Tribunal found the lower authorities were not diligent enough to analyze the assessee's reply on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contentions, set aside the "Impugned Order", and allowed the appeal, deleting the addition. The CIT(A) was admonished to be careful in passing orders in the future.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to consider the effect of the original notice dated 30.06.2021, the subsequent proceedings under Section 148A pursuant to the judgment in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the applicable provisions of TOLA, and the principles laid down in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The validity of the sanction under Section 151 must be determined with reference to the statutory provisions applicable to the reassessment proceedings, read with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A), by quashing the reassessment proceedings on a preliminary legal ground, did not adjudicate the substantive grounds concerning the addition of Rs.92,71,642/- under Section 68. Since the validity of reassessment proceedings is a threshold jurisdictional issue, it requires determination before merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the validity of reassessment proceedings, examining the original notice, subsequent notice, Section 151 sanction, and applicable TOLA provisions in light of the cited judgments. If reassessment is held valid, the CIT(A) shall adjudicate remaining grounds on merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the "Impugned Order" passed by the CIT(A) was indeed ex-parte and was passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This conclusion was based on the fact that the notices issued under section 250 of the Act were sent to incorrect email addresses (dmittalca@yahoo.com and dmittalca077386@gmail.com) instead of the address provided by the assessee in Form 35 (cagoyal0734@gmail.com). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo (fresh) adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking and well-reasoned order after affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the applicability of sections 69A and 115BBE, as the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs. 49,80,000/- made during the demonetization period. The primary contention that the deposits were out of the opening cash balance of Rs. 67,77,918/- as on April 1, 2016, was not substantiated. The Tribunal observed material discrepancies between the cash balances reflected in the cash books and those in the balance sheets for various financial years, including significant differences for March 31, 2013, March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017. Furthermore, a Chartered Accountant's certificate also showed inconsistencies. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory reconciliation for these discrepancies or provide independent corroborative evidence to establish the actual availability of the claimed cash balance. The Tribunal noted that the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable on facts. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition of Rs. 49,80,000/- under section 69A of the Act, dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption of the entire amount of Rs. 22,47,870 received as leave encashment. The Tribunal disagreed with the Chandigarh Bench's reasoning in Arvind Kumar Jolly, finding that the enhanced limit of Rs. 25,00,000, notified on 24.05.2023, was intended to operate retrospectively, as indicated by the Explanatory Memorandum and the pattern of earlier notifications. The Tribunal noted that the notification was deemed to have come into force from 01.04.2023, and the Budget Speech linked the enhanced figure to salary revisions effective from 01.01.2016. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that this Bench and several other Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the enhanced limit applies to leave encashment received before 01.04.2023. The Tribunal also clarified that it does not accept the assessee's contention that the monetary limit is null and void; rather, the limit, as now specified by the Central Government, is Rs. 25,00,000, which the assessee's received amount falls within. The orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption as claimed and delete the addition. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the issue of the constitutional validity of the classification between government and non-government employees.
The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. It only states the facts and the issues raised by the appeals. Therefore, the findings on each issue, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this portion of the judgment. No part of the judgment has been expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to ₹60 lakhs. In the present case, the tax effect in dispute is ₹4,48,050/-, which is less than the prescribed limit of ₹60 lakhs. Therefore, as per the circular, the Revenue is not expected to pursue this appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal also clarified that the Revenue is at liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the case falls under an exception clause. The appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.
The Tribunal held that the difficulty faced by the assessee due to Covid-19 and technical glitches in filing Form 10IC was genuine. It noted that the assessee had made a representation dated 31.05.2022 for condonation, which was within the time limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 06/2023. The Tribunal expressed surprise at the revenue's contention regarding the non-existence of the PCIT office and the lack of proof of receipt, stating that the assessee should be believed. The Tribunal found that the assessee's actions, including claiming the benefit in the ITR, seeking rectification, and making representations, demonstrated genuineness and bona fide intention. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CPC to 'open the window' for Assessment Year 2020-21 to enable the assessee to upload Form 10IC and receive the benefit under Section 115BAA. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. was distinguished. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in paragraph 4.3.4 of the impugned order had become infructuous. This was due to a subsequent order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(Exemption), which granted registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) for AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's claim for exemption deserved to be considered afresh in light of this new registration order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CPC to consider the assessee's case in view of the new registration order and pass a fresh intimation order under Section 143(1). The ratio decidendi is that a subsequent grant of registration under Section 12A, even if after the period under dispute, can validate prior claims for exemption if the delay in obtaining registration is condoned and the registration covers the period in question.
The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. It only states the facts and the issues raised by the appeals. Therefore, the findings on each issue, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this portion of the judgment. No part of the judgment has been expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. It only states the facts and the issues raised by the appeals. Therefore, the findings on each issue, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this portion of the judgment. No part of the judgment has been expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. It only states the facts and the issues raised by the appeals. Therefore, the findings on each issue, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this portion of the judgment. No part of the judgment has been expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account and the subsequent addition were unjustified and bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained regular books of account, which were audited and supported by various documentary evidences, including quantitative details of purchases, sales, and gratuity computations. The primary reason for rejection was the decline in the GP ratio from 30.47% to 3.64%. However, the Tribunal, relying on its own decisions in Arvind Kumar Singhavi and ACIT v/s Anant Commodities, and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Symphony Comfort System Ltd., held that a mere decline in GP ratio, without specific defects or discrepancies pointed out in the books of account, is not a sufficient ground to reject the books or make an addition. The Tribunal observed that the AO himself noted the industry standard GP ratio to be between 10% to 15%, and the assessee's GP of 12.62% fell within this range. The Tribunal also considered the reasons provided by the assessee for the GP decline, such as increased raw material prices and rejection of goods by the Electricity Board, which were ignored by the AO. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 17,47,012/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessment Order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte and not decided on merits. The Tribunal observed that the matter had not been adjudicated on merits and desired that the total income be computed and assessed on a real-time basis in accordance with law, following due process. The Tribunal expected the assessee to be compliant and cooperate with the department. In light of the assessee's submission that his authorized representative had died and he was an illiterate farmer, and his son was now digitally literate, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for passing a fresh order on merits. The assessee was directed to provide full and complete details, including updated contact information, and to attend hearings and file replies as sought by the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) made contradictory findings by first condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal and then, in the concluding part of the same order, declining to condone the delay. This "hot and cold" approach is legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the assessee's written submissions but did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. Consequently, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing and then pass a fresh order on the merits of the case. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and left it open for the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in paragraph 4.3.4 of the impugned order had become infructuous. This was due to a subsequent order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(Exemption), which granted registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) for AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's claim for exemption deserved to be considered afresh in light of this new registration order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CPC to consider the assessee's case in view of the new registration order and pass a fresh intimation order under Section 143(1). The ratio decidendi is that a subsequent grant of registration under Section 12A, even if after the period under dispute, can validate prior claims for exemption if the delay in obtaining registration is condoned and the registration covers the period in question.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued a notice on 07.10.2025 calling upon the assessee to file a condonation petition, but passed the impugned order on 15.10.2025, which was received by the assessee on 17.10.2025. This provided insufficient time for the assessee to file the application. The Tribunal also observed that the "Impugned Assessment Order" was passed under section 144/147 and had not been adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), considering the small amount of delay and the desire for a meritorious disposal. The assessee was cautioned for its approach in not filing the condonation petition promptly.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed his individual return of income and the partnership firm had also filed its return of income with an audited balance sheet. The AO had ignored the conversion of the proprietary concern into a partnership and then back to proprietorship, wrongly adding the entire bank account receipts of the partnership firm to the assessee's individual income. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition after a detailed analysis of the partnership firm's ITR, audited balance sheet, cash book, and bank passbook. The CIT-DR could not produce any contrary documents to prove that the bank account receipts belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were upheld, and the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's ground regarding the addition of Rs. 32,02,500/- as unexplained income and the application of Section 69A was not pressed. Regarding the validity of the assessment order and the show cause notice (additional ground No. 2), the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice detailed the deficiencies in the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits, sales tax returns, cash sales, and lack of documentary evidence or books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the AO had serious doubts about the claim that cash deposits were out of cash sales, and the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove otherwise. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue authorities that the entire amount should be treated as income from other sources, as the assessee did not establish that the deposits emanated from cash sales. Therefore, the contention that only the net profit element should have been added was dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts (additional ground No. 3), the Tribunal held that there was no rejection of books of accounts, implied or otherwise, by the AO. Consequently, the premise of the ground was demolished. The Tribunal also noted that the AO invoked Section 144 for best judgment assessment due to the assessee's lack of cooperation. The Tribunal clarified that while best judgment assessment must be judicious, estimating profits is not the only prescribed method. The Tribunal dismissed ground No. 3. However, concerning the invocation of Section 115BBE, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention, supported by the Ld. DR's inability to controvert, that Section 115BBE could not be invoked for AY 2017-18 as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Deepak Maratha. The AO was directed to compute taxes as per normal provisions. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to make the investment in the partnership firm. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had share capital and reserves of Rs. 16 crores and advances from customers of Rs. 27 crores, which were not disputed. Even after considering the Revenue's argument that Rs. 16 crores of share capital and reserves were utilized for the initial investment of Rs. 12 crores, the assessee still had Rs. 27 crores in customer advances. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee paid a small amount of interest (Rs. 3,90,910/-) on these advances, but considered them largely interest-free. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that customer advances should have been used for business purposes, stating that the businessman decides fund utilization. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 52 (SC), which held that the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to meet investments is enough to allow interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 34,91,621/-.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was unjustified in refusing to admit the additional evidence furnished by the assessee under Rule 46A. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided adequate reasons for not appearing before the AO and furnishing all evidences to prove the genuineness of the claimed expenses. The assessee had explained his business operations as a license holder of M/s Rajasthali, selling products through their counters, and had furnished sales statements, a certificate from Rajasthali confirming commission and rent expenses, bank statements for exhibition expenses, and vouchers with Aadhaar cards for wages paid in cash to labourers from the unorganized sector. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient grounds for rejecting the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed him to entertain the additional evidence, verify it, and determine the true income liable to tax after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowances on wages, commission, discount, exhibition expenses, or rent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 473 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that the law governing condonation of delay, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., requires a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the delay was attributable to a combination of administrative procedures, internal communications, confusion regarding the scope of work of statutory auditors, the subsequent need to appoint a tax professional, and the assessee's bona fide understanding concerning the taxability of its activities. The available material, including office note sheets and details of pending tax demands, supported the assessee's contention that the matter was under internal consideration and steps were being taken to address the outstanding demand and arrange for filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay was not considered deliberate or occasioned by culpable negligence. The Tribunal then proceeded to take up the appeal for hearing, noting the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay were not genuine and lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation that the email ID for communication was created by his accountant and was accessible only to him was contradicted by the ITBA portal screenshot showing a notice issued to 'abhayjain.ca@gmail.com' and subsequent ITRs filed using 'rameshcjainassociatesca@yahoo.co.in'. These email IDs appeared to belong to consultants, and it was implausible that only the accountant had access to them. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the absence of any evidence to prove that Sh. Prateek Sharma left the assessee's service in October 2023. The Tribunal also found the assessee's claim of being informed by the ITO telephonically about the order to be absurd and unsubstantiated, especially given the significant time lapse. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal was accordingly not admitted and dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. 1, challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings due to non-service of notice under Section 148, is dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the AO's report indicated service via speed post with dispatch number 3435, and the notice was not returned unserved. The Tribunal relied on Section 282 of the Act, which permits service by post or approved courier services. The Tribunal further relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s I Ven Interactive Ltd., which held that a notice issued at the address in the PAN database, within the prescribed time and in compliance with Section 282, is to be treated as duly served, making actual service immaterial if the notice is not returned unserved. The assessee's counsel could not distinguish this precedent. Regarding the addition of Rs. 12,11,300/-, the Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders. The assessee provided an affidavit claiming the cash was received from her husband and son. Since the assessee was unheard by the lower authorities, the issue is restored to the AO for fresh consideration after examining the evidence and explanation. The remaining grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that technical and procedural problems are common in faceless proceedings, especially for assessees who are not tech-savvy. The assessee's explanation that he came to know about the assessment order only on 10.05.2024, when an Income Tax Inspector visited his house with a demand notice dated 24.04.2024, was considered a sustainable explanation and constituted "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Tribunal invoked the principle of liberal interpretation of the Limitation Act, as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC), to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits, and the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present his case with supporting evidence, including bank statements, power of attorney, and registered sale deeds.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the appellant, Kaushalam Foundation, is allowed. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) had previously passed an order dated 27.09.2026 granting registration to the appellant under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that all objections raised by the CIT(E) while rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) had become infructuous, as they had already been decided in favour of the appellant during the disposal of the Section 12AB application. Since approval under Section 80G is consequential to registration under Section 12AB, and the latter had been granted, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to issue the approval under Section 80G in accordance with the law. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the rebate under Section 87A. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee's total income was Rs. 4,85,120/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 7,00,000/- specified for the rebate under Section 87A. The Tribunal noted that while Section 112A of the Act explicitly excludes Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from the rebate under Section 87A, there is no such condition mentioned for Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) under Section 111A. The rebate claimed by the assessee, Rs. 8,183/-, was also below the limit of Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the AO/CPC was considered well-reasoned and did not warrant interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's submission of suffering from neurological issues since June/July 2025, supported by an affidavit and prescription slip. This was considered a "sufficient cause" in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution after giving only three opportunities with short intervals. It was not on record if these notices were actually served. To ensure substantial justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's application for withdrawal and the absence of any objection from the revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
For AY 2014-15 (ITA No. 911/Ind/2025), the Tribunal held that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) fell under the mischief of Section 271AAB(1)(c) as they represented undisclosed income discovered upon search. However, considering that the minimum penalty rate at the material time was 30%, the Tribunal modified the penalty from 60% to 30% of the undisclosed income, partly allowing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea of 'theory of estimation' as it was not empirically proved. For AY 2013-14 and AY 2009-10 (ITA Nos. 912 & 913/Ind/2025), the Tribunal held that the show cause notice clearly stated the charge of concealment of income, and the nature of additions indicated concealment. The reduction of additions by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal did not negate the charge of concealment. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and dismissed these appeals. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue regarding the specific calculation of the 30% penalty for AY 2014-15, beyond directing it to be the minimum.
For AY 2014-15 (ITA No. 911/Ind/2025), the Tribunal held that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) fell under the mischief of Section 271AAB(1)(c) as they represented undisclosed income discovered upon search. However, considering that the minimum penalty rate at the material time was 30%, the Tribunal modified the penalty from 60% to 30% of the undisclosed income, partly allowing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea of 'theory of estimation' as it was not empirically proved. For AY 2013-14 and AY 2009-10 (ITA Nos. 912 & 913/Ind/2025), the Tribunal held that the show cause notice clearly stated the charge of concealment of income, and the nature of additions indicated concealment. The reduction of additions by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal did not negate the charge of concealment. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and dismissed these appeals. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue regarding the specific calculation of the 30% penalty for AY 2014-15, beyond directing it to be the minimum.