ITAT Indore Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's plea was that the deposits represented business turnover already disclosed and audited. Crucially, for intervening AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, the AO had accepted similar explanations for bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that a partnership firm is a distinct taxable entity and can only claim deductions for expenses incurred during its period of existence. Therefore, the disallowance of interest for the period prior to the firm's incorporation was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing "sufficient cause" and the principle of substantial justice. It was noted that crucial documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer (AO) or examined by the CIT(A), leading to the decision to remand.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing 'sufficient cause' and a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the leave encashment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by following a CBDT notification that enhanced the exemption limit, which was applicable retrospectively. For the ex-gratia payment, the Tribunal admitted additional grounds arguing it should be treated as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without proper adjudication and the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities for hearing due to the scheduling of hearings. Additionally, the AO's reassessment order was also considered ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that while the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement, the substantive benefit of the audit report should not be denied due to the mistake of the CA/counsel. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B and remanded the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the dismissal for non-prosecution was improper due to procedural issues arising from the migration of the appeal to the faceless system and bounced notices. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the potential for a fair adjudication, remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to participate effectively in the proceedings and was also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/-.

The Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code should not be a basis for rejecting an application for registration or approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to rectify the mistake and decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly exercised his power under Section 251 to remand the case back to the AO for extensive factual verification on a de novo basis. The Tribunal found no infirmities in the CIT(A)'s order and directed that all issues be examined afresh by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to provide substantiating evidence for their claims and had not actively pursued the appeal. The ITAT also observed that notices sent to the assessee during the first appellate proceedings went to incorrect email addresses, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order on Quantum assessment and remanded it for de novo adjudication. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal reduced it from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 due to the short gap between notices and the Covid-19 period.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present crucial evidence, including an ITSC order, before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision. As this evidence was presented before the ITAT, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with opportunities for the assessee to present all evidence and arguments.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the assessee could not be penalized for the delay in approval, as the application was made timely. The CIT(A) relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee should not be penalized for the delay in the grant of approval by the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from the temporary parking of IPO funds is intrinsically linked to the setting up of the project. Therefore, it should be allowed to be set off against the capital cost of the project, in accordance with the directions of the ITAT. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had responded to the notices, and since the assessment was completed under section 143(3) after considering the submissions, it could be inferred that the AO condoned the earlier defaults. The Tribunal also considered the affidavit explaining administrative constraints and the absence of key finance personnel as a reasonable cause under section 273B.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-representation and lack of evidence regarding a settlement commission. However, the assessee presented evidence of settlement before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee had a non-representation before the CIT(A) leading to an ex-parte order. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the assessee presented new evidence (an order and application from the Income Tax Settlement Commission) before the Tribunal. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s quantum order was ex-parte due to improper service of notices, as many notices went to incorrect email addresses. Therefore, the quantum appeal was set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeal was partly allowed by reducing the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance and failure to provide substantiating evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not adjudicated on merits and therefore set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct a "second stage inquiry" as mandated by the proviso to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This failure made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the revision by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code is not a sufficient reason to deny registration or approval, especially when the assessee has otherwise fulfilled the conditions. The Tribunal relied on several precedents to support this view.

The tribunal observed that the assessee had deducted tax at a lower rate than prescribed under Section 194J for professional services. The lower authorities confirmed the demand due to non-compliance and lack of evidence from the assessee. However, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's submission that it is a local authority that did not get a proper opportunity, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's plea for condonation of delay was supported by sufficient cause, considering the communication issues and the unfortunate demise of their counsel. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be made to suffer due to circumstances beyond their control.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the AO invoking section 50C while processing the return under section 143(1) is outside the permissible scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii). The Tribunal referred to various co-ordinate bench decisions that consistently held that substitution of stamp duty value under section 50C cannot be treated as an 'incorrect claim apparent from information in the return' and requires examination beyond the return, which can only be done in regular assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found the impugned order to be improper, considering that a first appeal regarding the Quantum Assessment Order is pending. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was an ex-parte order and the assessee's replies were not considered. The assessee had sought time to produce documents and filed an RTI application. The Tribunal, considering these facts, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the issues were not examined on merits due to lack of complete evidence. The CIT(A) orders also did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Given the ex-parte nature of the assessments and the need for verification of primary evidence, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) orders did not state the points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by section 250(6). Considering the totality of facts and the assessee's submission that necessary documents are now available, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently claimed the deposits were from disclosed business turnover, supported by audited books. The AO had accepted similar explanations in intervening years. The Tribunal found that the additions were made without demonstrating that the deposits exceeded recorded business receipts.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal held that multiple notices issued for the same issue within a short period constitute a single continuing default, not separate offenses. Therefore, penalty cannot be levied for each notice individually.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee does not wish to pursue the appeals and sought permission to withdraw them. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of genuine physical and financial hardships as "sufficient cause" under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act. Acknowledging that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not passing a reasoned order, the Tribunal remanded all four appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that a proper hearing opportunity be provided to the assessee.

The assessee's advocate requested to withdraw the appeals, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and decided without proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had failed to produce documentary evidence at the first appellate stage but expressed willingness to do so if given another opportunity. The revenue had no objection to setting aside the order and remanding the matter.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the delay, and that the revenue had no objection to condoning the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay and decided to condone it. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which was not sustainable. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's prayers and decided to remit the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. This includes re-computing capital gains for transactions at S.No. 2, 4 & 5 by referencing the DVO, examining cancellation evidences for transactions at S.No. 1 & 3 and re-computing capital gains, and allowing the cost of acquisition/improvement.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee received the assessment and impugned orders, they did not receive notices under sections 148, 142(1), and show cause notices. The Tribunal found a contradiction in this claim. Despite the lack of compliance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment, considering the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and prioritizing substantial justice. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh adjudication to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits. A cost was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause, and admitted the appeal. The appeal was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on additions made concerning demonetization period cash deposits, as the assessee's explanations and evidence regarding agricultural income and prior withdrawals were not fully considered.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was made under section 144 and not on merits. The assessee, claiming to be illiterate and unaware of tax procedures, did not comply with notices. The Tribunal found the appellate order did not introduce new information and decided to set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had 'sufficient cause' due to circumstances beyond their control, including prolonged medical issues and severe financial distress. The appeals were admitted, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a 'sufficient cause' due to the assessee's physical and financial hardships. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A)'s orders were dismissible for non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, and thus, the matters were to be adjudicated afresh.

The Tribunal noted that previous decisions of the Tribunal have held that M/s Jay Jyoti India Private Ltd. and associated entities are not paper companies. Following these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 68 was not justified.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, including the email address belonging to an erstwhile counsel and lack of awareness of faceless proceedings, to be reasonable and supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return and the audit report are procedural lapses and should not lead to the denial of exemption under sections 11/12, citing various judicial precedents. The matter was remanded to the AO for recomputation of income and allowance of exemption.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of substantial justice and the assessee's "sufficient cause" for the delay as per Section 253(5) of the Act, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal also noted procedural deficiencies in the lower authorities' orders and found it appropriate to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Sections 11/12 for AY 2018-19 based on the Proviso to Section 12A(2), as assessment proceedings (including Section 143(1) processing) were pending when registration was granted. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the assessee's objects and activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's lack of education, unawareness of reassessment proceedings, and the erroneous email address used for communication. The Tribunal found the delay to be unintentional and bona fide, supported by an affidavit. The matter was remanded for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a directory and not a mandatory requirement. The FTC cannot be denied due to a bonafide technical error in filing Form 67, especially as DTAA provisions override the Act. The AO was directed to verify and grant the FTC.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated a "sufficient cause" for the delay due to genuine physical and financial hardships beyond their control. Citing judicial precedent emphasizing substantial justice over technical limitations, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and admit the appeals.