ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — June 2025

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 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 restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee to produce its books of accounts and justify its claims. This was done in the interest of justice to ensure proper consideration of evidence.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have considered the documents submitted by the assessee, especially given the unavailability of primary evidence due to the partner's death and the age of the records. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds on merits rather than dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee to present their case afresh.

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 found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the failure to provide documents was due to the serious illness and subsequent death of the society's president, who possessed the required information. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged the severe disruption to the society's functioning due to embezzlement and the appointment of an administrator. It found that the lack of response to departmental notices likely stemmed from these circumstances, preventing a proper examination of the facts.

The Tribunal acknowledged the severe disruption to the society's functioning due to embezzlement and the appointment of an administrator. It found that the assessee was saddled with liabilities without a detailed examination of facts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the fundamental aspect of whether injustice would be caused by not condoning the delay and should have adopted a liberal approach. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the severe disruption to the society's functioning due to embezzlement and the appointment of an administrator. It restored the matters to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for the administrator to ensure due compliance.

The Tribunal acknowledged the severe disruption to the society's functioning due to embezzlement and the appointment of an administrator. It found that the lack of response to departmental notices likely stemmed from these circumstances, preventing a proper examination of the facts.

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 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 ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing and to verify the evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee and had passed a non-speaking order. The assessee was also deprived of an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This was done to allow the assessee to produce the donors and furnish requisite details, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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 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.

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.