ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — August 2025

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

The Tribunal held that the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and without passing a speaking order on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in a summary manner. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a de novo order in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and ensuring adherence to Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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 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 set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and adhering to Section 250(6).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording proper opportunities, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee argued for a remittance to the Assessing Authority. The revenue contended that opportunities were given and the assessee's negligence should not be condoned. The Tribunal, after hearing rival submissions and perusing the material, found that the facts in both appeals (ITA Nos. 104/JAB/2025 and 105/JAB/2025) were identical. The Tribunal deemed it expedient to set aside the impugned orders for the same reasoning as applied in the lead case (ITA No. 104/JAB/2025). The Tribunal allowed all grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals for statistical purposes, implying a re-adjudication or further consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording proper opportunities, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee argued for a remittance to the Assessing Authority. The revenue contended that opportunities were given and the assessee's negligence should not be condoned. The Tribunal, after hearing rival submissions and perusing the material, found that the facts in both appeals (ITA Nos. 104/JAB/2025 and 105/JAB/2025) were identical. The Tribunal deemed it expedient to set aside the impugned orders for the same reasoning as applied in the lead case (ITA No. 104/JAB/2025). The Tribunal allowed all grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals for statistical purposes, implying a re-adjudication or further 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's lack of education and reliance on a negligent tax consultant. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence and explanations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the proceedings. The Tribunal restored the assessment to the AO for fresh examination and deleted the penalties as premature or unsustainable.

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 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 condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's handicap in dealing with IT procedures. It found that the denial of deduction under Section 80P was based on an erroneous presumption of law regarding the timing of return filing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's lack of education and reliance on a negligent tax consultant. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence and explanations.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The penalty was deleted as it was premature pending the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce evidence. The penalty was deleted as it was premature pending the fresh assessment.

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 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 the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mechanically on the grounds of delay without properly considering the assessee's reasons. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

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 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 held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits.

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 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 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 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 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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the proceedings. The Tribunal restored the assessment to the AO for fresh examination and deleted the penalties as premature or unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that procedural lapses should not deny substantive benefits, especially when the assessee's intent to avail the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA was clear. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for further examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's handicap in dealing with IT procedures. It found that the denial of deduction under Section 80P was based on an erroneous presumption of law regarding the timing of return filing.

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).

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the lower authorities, despite notices being issued. However, considering the assessee's counsel's undertaking to cooperate and provide details if an opportunity is granted, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO).