ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) passed the order without issuing a proper notice of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in reasons. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act, dismissing the appeal ex-parte and in a summary manner. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee argued that they were not given a reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings as well.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal noted that both the assessment and the appellate order were passed ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The JCIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The JCIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The Tribunal held that the JCIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits as per section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions regarding the excess stock. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee's appeals before the ITAT argued that the CIT(A) orders were passed without sufficient time and opportunity, and without a speaking order on merits, thus violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The ITAT agreed and set aside the CIT(A) orders.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the non-compliance was likely due to technical issues and not an intention to hide information. Sending the documents via email should have been considered sufficient compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had clearly indicated its intent to avail the concessional rate in its return, filed before the due date. Denying the benefit solely due to a mistake in the format of the option form, especially when substantive conditions were met, would defeat the purpose of the beneficial provision. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the eligibility and the alternative claim.

The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing sufficient time and opportunity and failed to pass a speaking order on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The Tribunal agreed and set aside the order.

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

The assessee's appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The learned AR argued that the CIT(A) order was passed without sufficient opportunity and failed to provide a speaking order on merits. The Tribunal agreed and directed a fresh de novo order.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without establishing that the failure to comply was without reasonable cause. The Assessing Officer failed to make a good case for the penalty.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not conduct independent investigation and failed to verify facts. The assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper inquiry. Principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the deduction claim based on Section 80A(5) and the prior version of Section 80AC, which might not be applicable as interpreted. The Tribunal felt it was in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's circumstances. It was held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P by the lower authorities was based on an erroneous presumption of law and failure to provide evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's illiteracy and unfamiliarity with electronic communication significantly hampered his ability to respond to the lower authorities. The Tribunal also observed potential deficiencies in the assessment order, including the AO not examining all documents and the assessee not being afforded an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was being restored to the AO for fresh consideration, the penalty order was premature and unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and unfamiliarity with the e-filing portal. A similar case for AY 2014-15 was restored to the AO. In the interest of justice, the quantum appeal for AY 2013-14 is restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, the fact of non-compliance was established. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's order determining the TDS default lacked reasoned findings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte and in a summary manner, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to explain the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, citing the negligence of the erstwhile counsel and the Supreme Court's stance on condoning delays in its judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji. The penalties were deemed premature or unsustainable due to the reasons for non-compliance with notices and the potential for the addition to be overturned.

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, considering the explanation provided and the affidavit of the erstwhile counsel. The addition to income was also questioned, as the deposits might belong to bank customers. The penalties were considered premature or unsustainable based on the findings regarding the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the period for compliance coincided with the busy season for Chartered Accountants preparing audit reports and tax returns. It was held that there were sufficient reasons for the assessee's non-compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices as the reason for non-compliance. However, the authorities below had held the assessee in default without a reasoned finding on how the defaults under Section 194C occurred.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not adequately followed as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to represent their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's adjournment application and passed an ex-parte order without affording sufficient time and opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had afforded only one opportunity and passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not given sufficient time and opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a de novo order.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing. The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte, and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity by the Assessing Officer.

The appeal has become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee had also raised grounds regarding the rejection of the condonation of delay application by the CIT(A).