Loading ITAT cases…
221 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the application filed by the assessee before the ROC for amending the Articles of Association, deemed it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is expected to cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E) for passing an order of registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes. The specific findings on each ground of appeal were not elaborated as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) is valid. It reasoned that section 153A applies to the six assessment years preceding the requisition year, not the requisition year itself. The assessment for the requisition year is a regular assessment under section 143(3), with section 153B(1)(b) prescribing the time limit. Therefore, ground No. 1 was dismissed. Regarding the loose papers, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and did not provide specific reasoning for dismissing this ground, other than stating it was dismissed. For the cash addition (Ground No. 3), the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations unsatisfactory and shifting. The initial explanation of borrowings was unsubstantiated, and the subsequent explanation of own income and savings lacked evidence. The Tribunal held that section 69A was attracted as the assessee admitted ownership of unrecorded money with an unsatisfactory explanation. Thus, Ground No. 3 was dismissed. For the gold necklace (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal held that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 was inapplicable as the necklace was freshly purchased on the day of seizure, and the source of the Rs 97,500 investment was unexplained. Thus, Ground No. 4 was dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the motor car sold by the assessee was a personal effect and not a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. The definition of capital asset excludes personal effects, defined as movable property held for personal use, excluding specific items like jewellery. The Supreme Court's interpretation in H.H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT [1976] was cited, emphasizing that personal effects are those "intimately and commonly used" by the assessee. The assessee's own conduct, including disallowing car expenses as personal and not claiming depreciation, established the car's character as a personal effect. The Tribunal found that reflecting the car in the balance sheet as a fixed asset did not alter its character as a personal effect, as accounting treatment cannot override admitted user. The reliance on Santosh Structural & Alloys Ltd. and Share Aids (P.) Ltd. was deemed misplaced as those cases concerned depreciable business assets and not the anterior question of whether an asset is a capital asset or a personal effect. Consequently, the transfer of the car did not give rise to any capital gain or loss, and the disallowance of Rs 20,67,120 was confirmed. Ground No. 1 was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding confusion in trust laws and procedural difficulties in obtaining correct legal advice. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust. The assessee was to be allowed to file all necessary details and evidence before the CIT(E) for consideration for grant of registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding confusion in trust laws and procedural difficulties in obtaining correct legal advice. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust. The assessee was to be allowed to file all necessary details and evidence before the CIT(E) for consideration for grant of registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
On the first issue concerning the transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as infructuous based on an alleged agreement. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had contested the ALP before the TPO and filed an appeal disputing the addition. Furthermore, Section 92CA(4) mandates the AO to compute income in conformity with the TPO's determination, leaving no discretion. The Tribunal found that the TPO had not identified a comparable uncontrolled transaction and had constructed a notional rate by adding a premium to the bank's prime lending rate. The reliance on interest paid to other related parties as an 'internal CUP' was also deemed misplaced. The Tribunal decided the ground on merits, finding the disallowance to be unsubstantiated. On the second issue regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances can only be made if borrowed capital is shown to have been diverted. The Tribunal noted the assessee's substantial own funds exceeding the advances and its interest income exceeding expenditure. The AO had not identified any borrowing used for the advances, and the disallowance was a percentage of total interest without relation to advances or borrowings. Following precedents like Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) and Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that where own funds are sufficient, the onus is on the Revenue to prove diversion of borrowed funds, which was not done. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 24,73,296 under Section 36(1)(iii). The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were passed ex parte without granting the assessee a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In effect, the appeal in ITA No.741/JPR/2026 was allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, since the denial of 80G approval was consequential to the denial of 12AB registration, this issue was also restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to be considered afresh along with the 12AB application. The appeal in ITA No.742/JPR/2026 was also allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the applications.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering the fresh submissions and documents. The ratio of this decision is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to rectify omissions are paramount, especially when a party demonstrates a willingness to comply and has initiated the necessary steps. The operative direction is to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering the fresh submissions and documents. The ratio of this decision is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to rectify omissions are paramount, especially when a party demonstrates a willingness to comply and has initiated the necessary steps. The operative direction is to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 455 days in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It reasoned that the delay was attributable to the assessee's consultant's laxity in communicating notices, a fact not contradicted by the revenue. The Tribunal restored the issue of registration under Section 12AB to the file of the CIT(E), granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. This decision was based on the principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. A cost of Rs. 1000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation before the CIT(E). Consequently, the issue of approval under Section 80G was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, as it was directly linked to the Section 12AB registration. The Tribunal did not decide on the genuineness of activities or the completeness of the application, as these were remitted.
The Tribunal, by a majority opinion comprising the Accountant Member and the Third Member, held that the peak credit should be calculated at the end of the day. The Accountant Member directed the AO to consider the peak at the end of the day, amounting to Rs. 11,97,484/-, and allowed grounds 1 and 2 of the assessee's appeal. The Third Member concurred with the Accountant Member, stating that the closing balance of 05.02.2005, which is Rs. 11,97,484/-, should be taken as the peak credit balance for computation purposes. Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 of the assessee in ITA No. 444/JPR/2024 were allowed. Regarding ground number 3, concerning the addition of Rs. 50,400/-, there was no dissenting view from the original members, and this ground was also allowed in accordance with the concurring view. Therefore, the appeal in ITA No. 444/JPR/2024 was allowed. For ITA No. 450/JPR/2024, the Accountant Member considered it academic in nature, and the Third Member stated there was no question of difference to be answered. Thus, the appeal in ITA No. 450/JPR/2024 was disposed of in terms of the main appeal. In conclusion, both appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 378 days in filing the appeals was condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding confusion with recent changes in trust laws and the time taken to obtain proper legal advice. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide the assessee trust with one more opportunity of hearing and to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal noted the production of the RPT registration certificate before it. The ratio decidendi is that procedural confusions and subsequent compliance, when explained with sufficient cause, warrant an opportunity for fresh adjudication by the lower authority. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(E) was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the assessee had not been afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing before the rejection of its application for registration under Section 12A of the Act. The Tribunal considered the affidavit filed by the assessee's consultant, which stated that the assessee had participated in the proceedings and sought a personal hearing, which was denied. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issue of grant of registration back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to consider the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to bona fide reasons beyond their control, specifically the non-communication of the rejection order by their Chartered Accountant. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering that the assessee had obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust and pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal explicitly noted that all relevant materials, details, and evidence would need to be produced by the assessee for granting registration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal noted that a notice was shown to have been issued on 24.12.2025 for a reply on 13.01.2026, but it appeared the assessee had not received it. The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal based on facts recorded in Form No. 35 without calling for a reply and evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that providing an adequate opportunity is a fundamental rule of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to be decided afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue regarding the validity of the Section 154 addition was not decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were passed without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was noted that only one notice was issued by the CIT(E) which remained uncomplied with. Consequently, the Tribunal considered it fit to restore the issue of grant of registration under Section 12A back to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration. The reasoning was that the assessee had not been given a proper chance to present its case. Similarly, the issue of denial of approval under Section 80G, which was consequential to the Section 12A rejection, was also restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration along with the Section 12A application. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected ex parte by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance with notices and incomplete documentation, including the absence of prior registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and missing annual accounts and activity notes, sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee by the CIT(E). To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A of the Act back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to decide the application afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the denial of approval under Section 80G, which was based on the denial of Section 12AB registration, is also restored back to the file of the CIT(E) to be considered afresh along with the Section 12A application. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to bona fide reasons beyond their control, specifically the non-communication of the rejection order by their Chartered Accountant. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering that the assessee had obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust and pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal explicitly noted that all relevant materials, details, and evidence would need to be produced by the assessee for granting registration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Mark to Market (MTM) loss of Rs. 37,41,31,381/- was not sustainable. The assessee had made the provision as per RBI guidelines for Available For Sale (AFS) investments, which are considered stock-in-trade and are to be valued at the lower of cost or market value. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not considered the RBI guidelines and ICDS. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- for provision made for bad and doubtful debts on standard assets was not justified. Citing various coordinate benches of the ITAT, including Nagaur Urban Cooperative Bank and Punjab Gramin Bank, the Tribunal reiterated the proposition that provisions for bad and doubtful debts created on standard assets are allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Tribunal found no contrary decision from any jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts on standard assets. The ground of appeal concerning this issue was allowed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed in effect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1277 days, holding that the negligence of a tax consultant cannot be attributed to the assessee, who is a retired lady with no knowledge of tax laws. The Tribunal applied the principle of liberal interpretation for condoning delay, citing Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) (SC), and found sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption of the entire amount of Rs. 9,04,669/- received as leave encashment. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had applied Section 10(10AA)(ii) to restrict the exemption to Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, relying on CBDT Notification No. 31/2023, which revised the limit to Rs. 25,00,000/-, and following coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption. The AO was directed to allow the assessee's claim. The issue of whether the exemption limit under Section 10(10AA)(ii) had not been revised since 1998, as prima facie observed by the Delhi High Court in Kamal Kumar Kalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., was implicitly addressed by the application of the revised CBDT notification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to bona fide reasons beyond their control, specifically the non-communication from their Chartered Accountant regarding the rejection order. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering the subsequent registration of the assessee under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust and pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The ratio decidendi is that subsequent compliance with a prerequisite condition (RPT Act registration) and a reasonable explanation for delay warrant a fresh opportunity for the assessee to obtain registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) should be set aside. The Tribunal granted the assessee trust one more opportunity of hearing before the CIT(E) to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The reasoning was based on the rival submissions and the perusal of materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities. The ratio decidendi is that procedural deficiencies, if curable and if both parties agree to a remand for proper adjudication, should be addressed by providing an opportunity to rectify them. The operative direction was to set aside the orders and grant a further opportunity to the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 of the Act. The majority opinion, comprising the Accountant Member and the Third Member, found that the AO had taken a plausible view based on evidence and submissions, and this view could not be subjected to review under Section 263 without proving it to be contrary to the Act. The Third Member concurred, stating the AO took one of the possible views in law, and the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings. The Tribunal further held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as part of enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of property, is to be treated as an accretion to the principal compensation and classified as 'Capital Gains'. Consequently, such interest would also be eligible for benefits under Section 10(37) if the land acquired was agricultural. The Tribunal also ruled that since this interest is not in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2(28A), Section 56 of the Act would not be attracted. The Tribunal found that the issue was debatable and the AO had taken a possible view, thus the PCIT could not have taken cognizance under Section 263. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the compensation received in the shape of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be assessed as income. The issue of territorial jurisdiction and principles of natural justice were not explicitly decided in the final disposal, but the outcome implies they were not grounds for upholding the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal, by a majority opinion comprising the Accountant Member and the Third Member, held that the peak credit should be calculated at the end of the day. The Accountant Member directed the AO to consider the peak at the end of the day, amounting to Rs. 11,97,484/-, and allowed grounds 1 and 2 of the assessee's appeal. The Third Member concurred with the Accountant Member, stating that the closing balance of 05.02.2005, which is Rs. 11,97,484/-, should be taken as the peak credit balance for computation purposes. Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 of the assessee in ITA No. 444/JPR/2024 were allowed. Regarding ground number 3, concerning the addition of Rs. 50,400/-, there was no dissenting view from the original members, and this ground was also allowed in accordance with the concurring view. Therefore, the appeal in ITA No. 444/JPR/2024 was allowed. For ITA No. 450/JPR/2024, the Accountant Member considered it academic in nature, and the Third Member stated there was no question of difference to be answered. Thus, the appeal in ITA No. 450/JPR/2024 was disposed of in terms of the main appeal. In conclusion, both appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) should be set aside. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was instructed to pass an order in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all relevant materials and details. The principle established is that an assessee should be given a fair opportunity to present their case and provide necessary documentation, especially when the denial of registration is based on a procedural aspect like pending registration under a state act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, effectively remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. It directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was instructed to pass an order in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all the necessary details and evidence to be submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the primary issue of whether denial of registration was justified, but rather remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be granted to an assessee to rectify procedural deficiencies, especially when a statutory application is pending.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were passed without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was noted that only one notice was issued by the CIT(E) which remained uncomplied with. Consequently, the Tribunal considered it fit to restore the issue of grant of registration under Section 12A back to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration. The reasoning was that the assessee had not been given a proper chance to present its case. Similarly, the issue of denial of approval under Section 80G, which was consequential to the Section 12A rejection, was also restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration along with the Section 12A application. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the order was passed ex parte, with only one notice of hearing issued to the assessee, which remained uncomplied with. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB was restored back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to consider the application afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the Assessee's application solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) requires compliance with applicable laws material to the institution's objects. If the competent authority under that other law has determined that the applicant is not required to comply, then there is no non-compliance. The order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which held the temple not to be a public trust under the RPT Act, could not be brushed aside by the CIT(E) without examination and reasons. The Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Educational Society (supra) was distinguished as it dealt with situations where the applicability of State law was not in dispute. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessee's eligibility for registration under Section 12AB had not been examined, particularly concerning its objects and the genuineness of its activities, and whether the temple is held for public religious or charitable purposes or private religious purposes, which are relevant under Section 13(1)(a). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to consider the order dated 17.04.1984 and examine all aspects of the application, including the nature of the temple and its objects, after affording the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated it had expressed no opinion on the Assessee's eligibility for registration.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected ex parte by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance with notices and incomplete documentation, including the absence of prior registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and missing annual accounts and activity notes, sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee by the CIT(E). To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A of the Act back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to decide the application afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the denial of approval under Section 80G, which was based on the denial of Section 12AB registration, is also restored back to the file of the CIT(E) to be considered afresh along with the Section 12A application. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) should be set aside. The Tribunal granted the assessee trust one more opportunity of hearing before the CIT(E) to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The reasoning was based on the rival submissions and the perusal of materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities. The ratio decidendi is that procedural deficiencies, if curable and if both parties agree to a remand for proper adjudication, should be addressed by providing an opportunity to rectify them. The operative direction was to set aside the orders and grant a further opportunity to the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to bona fide reasons beyond their control, specifically the non-communication from their Chartered Accountant regarding the rejection order. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering the subsequent registration of the assessee under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee trust and pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The ratio decidendi is that subsequent compliance with a prerequisite condition (RPT Act registration) and a reasonable explanation for delay warrant a fresh opportunity for the assessee to obtain registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(E) should pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal did not make a finding on the merits of the denial of registration but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to provide the assessee with an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. The operative direction is to grant a fresh opportunity for hearing and decision.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to present all necessary details and evidence. The CIT(E) is to pass an order in accordance with the provisions of law after this opportunity. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the original denial but rather remanded the case for a fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to furnish complete information. The specific finding on the justification of the original denial is not recorded as the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(E) should pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal did not make a finding on the merits of the denial of registration but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to provide the assessee with an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. The operative direction is to grant a fresh opportunity for hearing and decision.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to pass an order in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all relevant materials. The specific finding on the genuineness of activities or the validity of the RPT registration was not made by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded. The issue of registration under section 80G(5) was also implicitly part of the remand. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing and that the Commissioner should pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee demonstrates a procedural step has been taken (like filing an RPT application) and requests an opportunity to furnish complete details, and the revenue does not object, the matter can be remanded to allow for proper adjudication after all necessary information is provided. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all necessary details and evidence. The Tribunal found that providing an opportunity for a fresh hearing and submission of documents would serve the interest of justice, especially given the pending RPT Act registration. The specific finding on whether the initial denial was justified was not elaborated upon, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The operative direction was to grant a further opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing and that the Commissioner should pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee demonstrates a procedural step has been taken (like filing an RPT application) and requests an opportunity to furnish complete details, and the revenue does not object, the matter can be remanded to allow for proper adjudication after all necessary information is provided. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The primary reason for this decision was that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard to prove the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had raised concerns about the lack of details for medical relief and treatment expenses, the assessee contended that it had filed replies to show cause notices and was not issued any further notices to provide additional documents. Consequently, the Tribunal found it necessary to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of limitation for filing the appeal was also addressed, with the Tribunal finding the appeal to be filed within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all necessary details and evidence. The Tribunal found that providing an opportunity for a fresh hearing and submission of documents would serve the interest of justice, especially given the pending RPT Act registration. The specific finding on whether the initial denial was justified was not elaborated upon, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The operative direction was to grant a further opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 455 days in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It reasoned that the delay was attributable to the assessee's consultant's laxity in communicating notices, a fact not contradicted by the revenue. The Tribunal restored the issue of registration under Section 12AB to the file of the CIT(E), granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. This decision was based on the principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. A cost of Rs. 1000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation before the CIT(E). Consequently, the issue of approval under Section 80G was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, as it was directly linked to the Section 12AB registration. The Tribunal did not decide on the genuineness of activities or the completeness of the application, as these were remitted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not sustainable in the eyes of law. The primary reason for this decision was that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard to prove the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had raised concerns about the lack of details for medical relief and treatment expenses, the assessee contended that it had filed replies to show cause notices and was not issued any further notices to provide additional documents. Consequently, the Tribunal found it necessary to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of limitation for filing the appeal was also addressed, with the Tribunal finding the appeal to be filed within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had rightly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the assessee's contention that the AO had made adequate inquiries. The PCIT's order noted that the AO was in possession of adverse information regarding ICPL, including statements from its directors admitting to providing accommodation entries and information about ICPL's lack of physical presence and net worth created through circular transactions. Despite this adverse material, the AO failed to conduct any inquiry or confront the assessee with this information. The Tribunal concurred with the PCIT that this constituted an improper and inadequate inquiry, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal distinguished the relied-upon case laws, Shri Nirav Modi and Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd., on facts, stating that in those cases, the AO had made inquiries and was satisfied with the evidence, unlike in the present case where adverse information was ignored. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's view that accepting the transaction without verifying the real source of funds was an error of law. The assessment order passed under Section 147 was therefore held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to enable it to file all necessary details and evidence. The CIT(E) was further directed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering the submissions and evidence. The specific issues of non-registration under the RPT Act, incomplete Form 10AB, and genuineness of activities were not decided on merits but were to be re-examined by the CIT(E) upon fresh consideration. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were passed ex parte without granting the assessee a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In effect, the appeal in ITA No.741/JPR/2026 was allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, since the denial of 80G approval was consequential to the denial of 12AB registration, this issue was also restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to be considered afresh along with the 12AB application. The appeal in ITA No.742/JPR/2026 was also allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the applications.
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the record, was of the considered view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present his case. The Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and produce necessary evidence in support of the claim for exemption under section 10(38). The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material, even if ex-parte. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening were distinguishable on facts because, in this case, the assessee had admittedly not filed its return of income, unlike in the cited cases where returns were filed. Regarding the approval by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), the Tribunal found that the PCIT recorded satisfaction with reference to the information and material available, indicating due application of mind, and thus rejected the assessee's contention challenging the validity of the approval. However, concerning the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Tribunal found the AO's action of treating it as unexplained investment under Section 69 to be erroneous and illegal. The Tribunal noted that Section 69 is attracted where investments are not recorded in the books of account, whereas the assessee claimed the amount was received as a loan/advance from Shri Pushkar Pathak and was utilized for time deposits, with the transaction recorded in the books. The Tribunal found no discussion by the AO on why the documentary evidence was not acceptable and no adverse material to controvert the assessee's evidence. It also noted that both the AO and CIT(A) focused on the creditworthiness of the lender without proper inquiry from Shri Pushkar Pathak. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Grounds challenging the addition on merits were allowed, while the additional ground challenging the reopening was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an adjournment application and did not present any arguments. The appeal was filed against the order of the NFAC dated 23.03.2026 for AY 2019-20. The brief facts indicate that the assessee had not filed its return of income, and the Department had information about cash deposits of Rs. 36,89,132/- and interest income of Rs. 36,20,226/-, leading to reopening under Section 147. Since the assessee did not appear or present any submissions, the Tribunal was unable to adjudicate on the merits of the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. No specific finding was made on the validity of the reopening or the merits of the income assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation that the firm had ceased operations and communications were missed. While the Revenue opposed condonation, the Tribunal found the reasons genuine and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance from the assessee during assessment and the NFAC's dismissal based on failure to produce documentary evidence. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The order of the NFAC was set aside, and the file was restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one more opportunity. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions, failing which the AO could proceed ex-parte. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The specific issues regarding the validity of reassessment, the applicability of section 40(a)(ia), and the principles of natural justice were not adjudicated on merits due to the remand.