ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reply, sent via email on 20.03.2025, was not considered by the CIT(Exemption) before passing the order. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the reply and any further evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently satisfied the AO regarding its charitable activities and that CBDT circulars provided relaxation for the 80G(5) application's limitation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that while there was negligence in not updating the email ID, the death of a partner could have led to notices being missed. The Tribunal also noted that the additions were made without examining the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the genuineness of the share transaction, including identity and creditworthiness, through supporting documents. The Assessing Officer's finding was based solely on the Investigation Wing report without conducting independent inquiries. The Tribunal relied on precedents where similar additions were deleted for lack of proper evidence and failure to discharge the onus by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be sustained beyond the assessment stage. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering that the income was already surrendered and taxed in the hands of the son.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get an opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities regarding the disputed deduction. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was restored to the AO to allow the assessee to present submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed filed responses and written submissions, but they were not visible to the Addl/JCIT(A) due to technical issues. Therefore, the assessee was not heard on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-compliance with notices from the AO and CIT(A) was attributed to his illness. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the bank deposits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had made substantial compliance and the CIT(Exemption) did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the submitted evidence. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was considered arbitrary and against natural justice.

The Tribunal found gaps in the CIT(Exemption)'s order regarding CSR compliance and the timeliness of the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-examination and a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently satisfied the AO regarding its charitable activities and that CBDT circulars provided relaxation for the 80G(5) application's limitation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's audited books of accounts were not rejected by the AO and the revenue did not rebut the fact of debtor realization and car sale, the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified. The advance paid to a third party, duly credited to its account, was also not income of the assessee.

The Tribunal found gaps in the CIT(Exemption)'s order regarding CSR compliance and the timeliness of the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-examination and a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was explained as the balance of capital from the assessee's deceased wife's business, which was kept as cash at home. Although keeping such a large amount idle might seem imprudent, the explanation remained unrebutted and there was no material to suggest it was invested elsewhere. The addition was based on surmises and conjectures.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and that his business activities could explain the deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to allow the assessee to present evidence and explain the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the facts and evidence presented by the assessee, including certificates from the Panchayat and Patwari, and revenue records demonstrating agricultural activities. These pieces of evidence, along with the Patwari's statement regarding agricultural income of Rs. 10,00,000/-, indicated that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, and the assessee's business activities were not examined by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amounts could not be regarded as unexplained money under Section 69A as the subsidy was acknowledged and the MMDC transfer was from another account. However, due to the assessee's failure to explain the taxability of the subsidy and the MMDC transfer, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that Section 43CB is applicable to construction contracts and service contracts, not to real estate developers selling self-constructed properties. The ICDS-3 also states that for contracts commenced before March 31, 2016, revenue recognition should be based on the method regularly followed. The CIT(A) did not adequately consider these legal aspects.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on short-term deposits, even if from borrowed funds used for project setup, is taxable as income from other sources. Such interest cannot be adjusted against project costs or interest payable on loans as per the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal restored the quantum addition to the AO for examination of sales registers and other evidence to determine the profit element of alleged business transactions. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted due to the AO's failure to provide reasons for reassessment as per Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions against the assessee without seeking an explanation from the co-owner, Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani, regarding the source of funds and his share in the property and profits. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal restored the quantum addition to the AO for examination of sales registers and other evidence to determine the profit element of alleged business transactions. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted due to the AO's failure to provide reasons for reassessment as per Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions against the assessee without seeking an explanation from the co-owner, Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani, regarding the source of funds and his share in the property and profits. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on short-term deposits, even from borrowed funds before business commencement, is taxable as income from other sources, following the Supreme Court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.

The assessee informed the Tribunal that they had filed an application for settlement under VSVS, 2024 and paid the demanded tax. Therefore, they wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal considered the Department's request to withdraw the appeal due to a revised monetary limit for appeals set by a CBDT circular. The tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, and no exceptions applied.

The Tribunal permitted the Department to withdraw its appeal based on CBDT circulars revising monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit and did not fall under any exceptions.

The assessee filed an appeal against the Pr. CIT's order. However, during the hearing, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent assessment proceedings had concluded in their favor. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay, considering the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and the investment being from land acquisition compensation. The assessment order was set aside for de novo assessment.

The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal as it did not fall under any exception clause. The assessee had no objection to this request.

The assessee had no objection to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal, acceding to the Revenue's request, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition (paralytic attack). The Tribunal found that the explanation for cash deposits and agricultural income was supported by certain evidence, and directed the AO to re-assess the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated that the non-compliance with notices was due to a reasonable cause, and therefore, the Assessing Officer ought not to have imposed the penalty. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on conjectures and surmises without examining the purchases and stock position. The Tribunal noted that the demonetization announcement caused liquidity issues, and the assessee's sales occurred before the demonetization impact. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were not justified in treating the sales as bogus.

The tribunal noted that the appellant had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred by assuming the deposit was from cash on hand, rather than cash sales. Since the sales were supported by evidence and accepted in VAT returns, the addition was based on conjecture.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence, which included a certificate from the payee stating the interest was offered for tax. Therefore, the addition made on account of non-deduction of TDS should be deleted.

The Tribunal found that passing two assessment orders for the same assessment year is unsustainable in law. The earlier order was passed ex-parte, and subsequent proceedings were also found to be erroneous. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal found that passing two assessment orders for the same assessment year is unsustainable in law. The earlier order was passed ex-parte, and subsequent proceedings were also found to be erroneous. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal found that passing two assessment orders for the same assessment year is unsustainable in law. The earlier order was passed ex-parte, and subsequent proceedings were also found to be erroneous. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal held that the AO made an addition of the entire credits but failed to provide set off for debit entries. While the assessee's explanation of being in the money lending business was not satisfactory, the AO should have computed the peak credit. Therefore, the AO is directed to restrict the addition to 12% of the total cash deposited, representing the notional interest earned on short-term loans.

The Tribunal found that passing two assessment orders for the same assessment year is unsustainable in law. The earlier order was passed ex-parte, and subsequent proceedings were also found to be erroneous. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The appeals were dismissed as not pressed and not maintainable because the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary threshold of Rs. 60,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if its appeals were found not covered by the circular.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of on this technical ground.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

The assessee's counsel requested the appeal be treated as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Department's counsel had no objection. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could seek restoration if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.

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 during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the matter is restored.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the adjournment application was rejected and an ex-parte order was passed without sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a de novo order.