ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal observed that the notices issued to the assessee might not have been effectively served, and there was a change in incumbency, which could have hampered timely replies. It was also noted that the assessee claimed exemption under section 10(20) as a local authority and that the deposits represented taxes collected. Therefore, to ensure justice and a proper legal status determination, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred due to a delay of 145 days, finding the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay to be insufficient and indicative of negligence. The Tribunal, however, noted that the delay was not inordinate and the assessee's counsel's failure to inform them of proceedings could be a plausible reason.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, directing the assessee to comply fully. It cautioned the assessee about electronic communication requirements under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal solely on technical grounds of missing documents on the portal, especially when the appeal was filed manually. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored ITA No. 22/JAB/2024 to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to make due compliance. For ITA No. 23/JAB/2024, the penalty on addition under section 69A was restored to the AO. For ITA No. 24/JAB/2024, the penalty under section 271B was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the default.

The Tribunal restored ITA No. 22/JAB/2024 to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to make due compliance. For ITA No. 23/JAB/2024, the penalty on addition under section 69A was restored to the AO. For ITA No. 24/JAB/2024, the penalty under section 271B was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the default.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The assessee's counsel submitted that the entire demand had been deposited and the matter settled, hence sought to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal restored ITA No. 22/JAB/2024 to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to make due compliance. For ITA No. 23/JAB/2024, the penalty on addition under section 69A was restored to the AO. For ITA No. 24/JAB/2024, the penalty under section 271B was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the default.

During the hearing, the assessee's representative stated that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeal because the demand had been reduced to nil following the passing of orders under Section 154. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested the appeal be withdrawn. The CIT DR had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider all the documents and submissions made by the assessee. For the section 12AB registration, it was observed that the CIT's reasoning for rejection was not per law. For the 80G(5) approval, the CIT's order did not record a breach of conditions, making the rejection unjustified.

The assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal subject to conditions. The Ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider all the documents and submissions made by the assessee. For the section 12AB registration, it was observed that the CIT's reasoning for rejection was not per law. For the 80G(5) approval, the CIT's order did not record a breach of conditions, making the rejection unjustified.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) should pass a speaking order on merits. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application on the ground of delay for an already functional society. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after the assessee files replies to the queries.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) should pass a speaking order on merits. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application on the ground of delay for an already functional society. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after the assessee files replies to the queries.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to reapproach if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted. The dismissal was based on the assessee's submission regarding the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) should pass a speaking order on merits. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the determined amount. Based on this, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The assessee, through their Authorized Representative, filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal. This was due to a subsequent CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024, which provided relief resolving the issue under dispute, making the appeal unnecessary. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal had subsequently allowed the registration u/s 12AA/12AB and 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee's representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal had subsequently allowed the registration u/s 12AA/12AB and 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a withdrawal request and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.