ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was directed to provide complete evidence of its activities and donation details. The CIT(Exemption) was asked to reconsider the applications in light of the evidence and recent CBDT circulars.

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 found merit in the assessee's contention that the audited accounts were not rejected by the AO and no adverse comments were made regarding the correctness of these accounts. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not rebutted the facts regarding the realization of debtors and the sale of a car. The Tribunal agreed that the advance paid to a third party would not partake of the character of the assessee's income.

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 restored the matter of registration under Section 12AB to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration. Consequently, the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) was also restored to the CIT(Exemption) for an appropriate decision, aligning with the restoration of the 12AB registration. ITA No. 25/JAB/2025 was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of 12AB registration was restored to the CIT for reconsideration. Since the 80G(5) issue was linked to the 12AB registration, the Tribunal restored ITA No. 46/JAB/2025 to the CIT for a fresh decision. ITA No. 25/JAB/2025 was dismissed as infructuous because its rejection was solely based on the prior rejection of the 12AB registration.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the matter concerning the addition of Rs. 25,85,000/- (ITA No. 128/JAB/2023) should be restored to the AO for examination of sales records to determine the profit element of the transactions, and thus the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(b) (ITA No. 129/JAB/2023), the Tribunal noted the AO's failure to provide reasons for reopening and the subsequent non-compliance, but held that the penalty was unwarranted due to the AO's procedural lapses, and thus the penalty was deleted, allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the matter concerning the addition of Rs. 25,85,000/- needs to be restored to the AO for re-examination of the sales register and other evidence to ascertain if the deposits in the Union Bank account were from sale proceeds. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal deleted the penalty because the AO failed to provide the reasons for reopening the case to the assessee, which is a violation of principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal noted that the explanation of Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani, whose account was used for payments, was not sought. Without establishing the source of funds and his share, additions against the assessee were not possible. The Tribunal restored the matters to the AO for further inquiries.

The Tribunal noted that the explanation of Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani, who facilitated the payment for the land purchase, was never sought. It was observed that Rajwani was not a regular taxpayer, and proceeding against the assessee without confronting these facts to him and recording his explanation was not proper. Therefore, the matters were restored to the AO for de novo consideration.

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

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

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 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 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 Tribunal found that passing two different assessment orders for the same issue and for the same assessment year is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that passing two assessment orders for the same assessment year is not sustainable in law. It was also noted that one of the assessment orders was passed ex parte. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders for both assessment years and restored the cases to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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 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 delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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.

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 held that the CIT(A) was bound to pass a speaking order on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Since this was not done, the impugned order was set aside.