ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal noted the circumstances of embezzlement, arrest of staff, and appointment of an administrator that led to the assessee's non-compliance. Recognizing the potential for lack of detailed examination due to these issues, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matters for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have sought clarification regarding the inconsistency in the assessee's stance and conducted inquiries, especially since the assessment was protective and Mahesh Soni had claimed the deposits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The notice period given was extremely short, and the adjournment request was denied unreasonably.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and passing a non-speaking order. The Tribunal also noted that while a sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delay, a liberal approach should be adopted in the interest of substantial justice, especially if the delay is not deliberate and does not lead to any advantage for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the society's severe handicap due to embezzlement and administrative issues, leading to non-compliance. While acknowledging the assessee's submissions regarding the reasons for delay, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matters to the AO for fresh consideration in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without considering the grounds of appeal and violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to present their case and that the authorities below did not properly consider the explanations offered. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have examined all aspects and decided the grounds raised by the assessee. Principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given adequate opportunity and for the grounds to be decided by a speaking order.

The Tribunal acknowledged that embezzlement and administrative issues caused the assessee's non-compliance. However, it emphasized that failure to respond to departmental notices would lead to adverse inferences. The Tribunal decided to restore the matters to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the Administrator to ensure due compliance.

The Tribunal observed that the authorities below should have considered the assessee's reply and verified the contention of two PAN numbers. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution without considering the merits. The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority should adjudicate issues on merit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to restore the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions, following a precedent where an ex-parte order was made. The Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision, to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the order rejecting the Section 12AB registration, which was the sole basis for rejecting the Section 80G application, had been set aside. Therefore, the Tribunal found it proper to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restore the matter for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit and the judgment of the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy. However, it was observed that new evidence was filed before the Tribunal, the veracity of which required verification by the lower authorities. Therefore, to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside.