ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — May 2025

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 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 appeals due to non-compliance. The Tribunal restored ITA No. 22/JAB/2024 to the AO for de novo assessment, allowing ITA No. 23/JAB/2024 and ITA No. 24/JAB/2024 for statistical purposes, directing the assessee to ensure due compliance for reassessment and explanation of defaults.

The Tribunal noted that the facts of the case were not properly brought out before the lower authorities. For ITA No. 22/JAB/2024, the appeal was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after due compliance by the assessee. For ITA No. 23/JAB/2024, related to penalty, it was restored to the AO as the quantum assessment was set aside. For ITA No. 24/JAB/2024, concerning penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited, the matter was restored to the AO to provide 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assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested the appeal be withdrawn.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 properly consider the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee regarding the timely submission of documents for Section 12AB registration. For Section 80G(5) approval, the CIT's order did not clearly establish a breach of the stipulated conditions. Therefore, both matters were restored to the CIT for fresh consideration.

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 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 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 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 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 Tribunal held that the rejection of the application based on the delay in filing was unwarranted for already functional trusts. It also noted the assessee's submission of inability to comply due to difficulties and willingness to refile. The Tribunal decided to restore the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after the assessee files replies.

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 Tribunal noted that the assessee raised grounds of appeal but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and the need for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

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 Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals.

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.