Loading ITAT cases…
245 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was legally unsustainable due to contradictory findings. The Ld. CIT(A) had initially condoned the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, as recorded in paragraph 1.3.3 of his order, but subsequently, in the concluding part, declined to condone the delay. This act of 'making hot and cold in the same order' was found to be legally impermissible. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that although the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee, he did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass a fresh order on the merits of the case. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open for the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It noted that both the assessee and the partnership firm filed their respective income tax returns on 21.09.2018, with the partnership firm filing an audited balance sheet. The AO had ignored the conversion of the proprietary concern into a partnership and then back to proprietorship, incorrectly adding the entire bank account receipts of the partnership firm to the assessee's individual income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition after analyzing the ITR filed by the partnership firm, its audited balance sheet, cash book, and bank passbook. The Ld. CIT-DR could not provide any contrary documents to establish that the bank account receipts belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption of the entire amount of Rs. 22,47,870 received as leave encashment. The Tribunal disagreed with the Chandigarh Bench's reasoning in Arvind Kumar Jolly, stating that the Explanatory Memorandum describes the operation of the enhanced limit as retrospective, and earlier notifications also operated retrospectively. The Tribunal noted that the notification dated 24.05.2023 was deemed to have come into force from 01.04.2023, indicating retrospective operation. The Tribunal also considered the Budget Speech and the arithmetic linking the enhanced figure to revised pay effective from 01.01.2016. The Tribunal affirmed its consistent view, supported by multiple co-ordinate and other Benches, that the enhanced limit applies to leave encashment received before 01.04.2023. The Tribunal clarified that it does not accept the assessee's contention that the fourth limb of Section 10(10AA)(ii) is null and void, but rather the limit, as now specified by the Central Government, is Rs. 25,00,000, which the assessee's receipt falls within. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption and delete the addition. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that nothing in Section 12A or 12AB bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The Tribunal noted that the earlier dismissal by the Tribunal on 06.02.2024 did not examine the genuineness of activities but was based on the Assessee not pursuing that application, thus settling the fate of that specific application, not the facts underlying it. The impugned order was found to proceed on a wrong premise. Regarding genuineness, the CIT(E)'s findings were considered unresolved queries, not conclusions. Deficiencies like missing ledgers, beneficiary details, and bills were deemed curable. The Tribunal found that the enquiry was compressed, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the Section 12A application was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity. The CIT(E) was given a free hand to examine all aspects, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which the Tribunal expressed no opinion. The observation regarding cancellation of provisional registration was deemed not to survive. Consequently, the order rejecting the Section 80G application was also set aside and restored for fresh decision along with or after the Section 12A application. The grounds of appeal were allowed to this extent.
The Tribunal held that nothing in Section 12A or 12AB bars a fresh application after an earlier one has been rejected. The Tribunal noted that the earlier dismissal by the Tribunal on 06.02.2024 did not examine the genuineness of activities but was based on the Assessee not pursuing that application, thus settling the fate of that specific application, not the facts underlying it. The impugned order was found to proceed on a wrong premise. Regarding genuineness, the CIT(E)'s findings were considered unresolved queries, not conclusions. Deficiencies like missing ledgers, beneficiary details, and bills were deemed curable. The Tribunal found that the enquiry was compressed, and neither side had a fair occasion to complete it. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the Section 12A application was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity. The CIT(E) was given a free hand to examine all aspects, including registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, on which the Tribunal expressed no opinion. The observation regarding cancellation of provisional registration was deemed not to survive. Consequently, the order rejecting the Section 80G application was also set aside and restored for fresh decision along with or after the Section 12A application. The grounds of appeal were allowed to this extent.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential interest, amounting to Rs. 48,830, was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in True Blue Voice India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasoning was that Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which provides the mechanism for computing fees under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS statements, was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Although Section 234E was introduced earlier (01.07.2012), the authorities were not empowered to impose late fees while processing TDS returns under Section 200A of the Act prior to the insertion of Section 200A(1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning that the processing was done after 01.06.2015 was found to be without merit, as the Hon'ble Madras High Court had clearly held that for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, Section 234E fees were not applicable even if processing occurred after 01.06.2015. Since the present case pertains to AY 2013-14, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court squarely applies. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's arguments and set aside the impugned order confirming the levy of fees.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel verbally submitted that the present appeal was a duplicate and that the assessee's appeal had already been decided in their favour by the ITAT, Jaipur Benches, in ITA No. 1774/JPR/2025, vide order dated 16.06.2026. A copy of this order was placed on record. Based on this submission and the fact that the revenue had no objection, the assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the present appeal. The Tribunal, in view of the above, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No substantive issues were decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Following the admitted facts and the ITAT's order in ITA No. 1212/JPR/2026 concerning the Section 12A application, the application seeking approval under Section 80G of the Act was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the application afresh along with the assessee's application seeking registration under Section 12A. The reasoning was that the rejection of the Section 80G application was based on a curable defect in the manner of filing, similar to the Section 12A application. The ITAT in the Section 12A case had emphasized distinguishing between defects that go to substantive eligibility and those that merely inhere in the manner of presentation, with the latter potentially admitting rectification. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the application itself.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding the incorrect email ID used for communication. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal perused the materials, including the paper book and the AO's records. The assessee had submitted detailed replies to the AO, explaining that the share application money of Rs. 45 lakhs was received during FY 2012-13 and the allotment of shares was done during AY 2014-15. The balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 clearly showed the receipt of share application money pending allotment. The assessee also produced board resolutions, applications for allotment, bank statements, and PAN cards of investors, which the AO had not considered. The Tribunal found that the addition made under Section 68 for AY 2014-15 on account of share application money was not sustainable in law, as the receipt of funds predated the assessment year in question. Therefore, the entire addition made by the AO was liable to be deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal held that the assessee's circumstances, including being an illiterate villager unfamiliar with online procedures and the email ID issue, constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in not condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before it, for identical reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation, including the impact of the Corona Pandemic, was sufficient cause. Given that the assessment order was ex parte and the NFAC had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessment afresh after providing the assessee with due opportunity of hearing. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal held that the addition made to the income of the assessee, amounting to Rs. 4,62,494/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs. 2,82,446/- for AY 2020-21, was grossly unjustified. The reasoning was based on the inconsistency of the AO's stand. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2021-22, the AO himself had found the gross profit rate declared by the assessee for AY 2020-21 to be justified when estimating net profits. This fact remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the assessment made in the present case, by adopting a different estimation method, was inconsistent and not justified as per the AO's own stand in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal agreed that since the AO found the gross profit for AY 2020-21 justified, there was no reason to make any addition in that year by estimation. Similarly, the gross profit for AY 2019-20 was shown to be in consonance with AY 2020-21, making the assessment in AY 2019-20 also unjustified based on the AO's subsequent stand. Consequently, the additions made were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention any issue left undecided.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's vehicles qualified as Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and thus Section 44AE(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable for determining presumptive income. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'heavy goods vehicle' in the Explanation to Section 44AE(2)(i) specifies that it means any goods carriage with a gross vehicle weight exceeding 12,000 kilograms. The assessee's counsel acknowledged that for vehicles other than tractors or road-rollers, the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is to be considered for HGV classification. Since the assessee did not demonstrate that its vehicles were tractors or road-rollers, the unladen weight could not be considered. The Tribunal found that the GVW of the vehicles admittedly exceeded the 12,000 kgs limit. Consequently, the AO's computation of income under Section 44AE(2)(i) was upheld. The Tribunal also noted that the judicial precedents cited by the assessee could not be verified and were not accessible. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not specifically addressed in the provided extract of the judgment, but the overall dismissal implies it was not granted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Regarding the first ground, the judgment does not explicitly state whether a personal hearing was granted or denied, nor does it discuss the assessee's contention regarding the violation of natural justice. However, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. On the second ground, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 29,00,000. The Tribunal noted that the cash sales between November 2, 2016, and November 5, 2016, amounting to Rs. 29 lakhs, were made without mentioning the name, address, or contact number of the buyer, and the description of goods was vague ('22 carat gold jewellery'). The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of providing proper explanations with relevant evidence. The Tribunal distinguished the reliance on case laws by the assessee, noting that they pertained to the demonetization period from November 8, 2016, onwards, whereas the cash deposits in this case were prior to that period and remained unexplained. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the orders passed by the lower authorities did not require interference and the grounds raised by the assessee were devoid of merit.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted hearing opportunities on 10.06.2025, 01.10.2025, and 12.11.2025, but these notices were sent to the wrong email address. Consequently, the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, ensuring notices are sent to the correct email address as per Form No. 35, and thereafter pass a fresh order on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 67/JPR/2026 was deemed applicable to ITA No. 77/JPR/2026 due to similar issues and differing only in figures.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal held that the addition made to the income of the assessee, amounting to Rs. 4,62,494/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs. 2,82,446/- for AY 2020-21, was grossly unjustified. The reasoning was based on the inconsistency of the AO's stand. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2021-22, the AO himself had found the gross profit rate declared by the assessee for AY 2020-21 to be justified when estimating net profits. This fact remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the assessment made in the present case, by adopting a different estimation method, was inconsistent and not justified as per the AO's own stand in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal agreed that since the AO found the gross profit for AY 2020-21 justified, there was no reason to make any addition in that year by estimation. Similarly, the gross profit for AY 2019-20 was shown to be in consonance with AY 2020-21, making the assessment in AY 2019-20 also unjustified based on the AO's subsequent stand. Consequently, the additions made were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention any issue left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the three concerns did not fall within the ambit of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee prepared separate profit and loss accounts as per the agreements, and the profit was transferred, which was not fees for technical services but a business transaction. The Tribunal observed that the AO had previously examined similar issues for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and accepted the assessee's claim without disallowing the debit. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Parashuram Pottery Works Co Ltd Vs ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1' regarding the finality of litigation. Furthermore, the Revenue's learned counsel was unable to controvert the fact that identical issues for preceding years (AY 2009-10 to AY 2015-16) were decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and sustained its view. The addition of Rs. 1,30,43,753/- under Section 201(1) and interest of Rs. 1,17,39,378/- under Section 201(1A) were directed to be deleted. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the letter filed by the assessee requesting withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) had already granted substantial relief and reduced the addition/penalty, and therefore, the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal further. The revenue's representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal, considering the contents of the letter and the lack of objection from the revenue, allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the penalty levied under Section 270A, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted hearing opportunities on 10.06.2025, 01.10.2025, and 12.11.2025, but these notices were sent to the wrong email address. Consequently, the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, ensuring notices are sent to the correct email address as per Form No. 35, and thereafter pass a fresh order on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 67/JPR/2026 was deemed applicable to ITA No. 77/JPR/2026 due to similar issues and differing only in figures.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed, with the reassessment quashed as barred by limitation. For AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction in most of these years but directed that peak additions be re-worked and capped at the sum added. Specific additions like interest expenditure, commission, payments to Shri Divyank Jain, and foreign currency profits were either deleted or sustained to a re-worked extent. For AY 2021-22, the rejection of books was upheld, and the AO was directed to work out the profit of the 'stole business' to the extent it accrued in FY 2020-21. For AY 2022-23, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the order was set aside to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the findings in this order regarding seized foreign currency notes and profit estimates, and crucially, to avoid double use of money received back from RMT as an explanation for both the receipt from RMT and the source of payments to Shri Divyank Jain and Shri Godhaji, and investments. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions for AY 2022-23. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to additions finally sustained under sections 69A, 69, 69C, 68 to 69D. Grounds on total income and telescoping were allowed to the extent of relief granted. Penalty proceedings were held to be premature and dismissed. The ratio decidendi for the partly allowed appeals is that while jurisdiction and the basis of additions may be upheld, the quantum of additions needs careful re-working, and the principle of double non-explanation of funds must be adhered to.
The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the assessee's counsel submitted that the present appeal was a duplicate and that the assessee's appeal had already been decided in their favour by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches, in ITA No. 1773/JPR/2025, vide an order dated 16.06.2026. A copy of this order was placed before the Tribunal. The assessee's counsel then expressed a desire to withdraw the present appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the present appeal, as it was withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 473 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that the law governing condonation of delay, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), requires a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the delay was attributable to a combination of administrative procedures, internal communications, confusion regarding the scope of work of statutory auditors, the need to appoint a tax professional, and the assessee's bona fide understanding of taxability. The available material, including office note sheets and details of pending tax demands, supported the assessee's contention that the matter was under active consideration and steps were being taken to address the outstanding demand and arrange for filing the appeal. Therefore, the cause of substantial justice was preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal then proceeded to take up the appeal for hearing, noting the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to a reasonable cause shown by the assessee, specifically the use of incorrect email addresses for issuing hearing notices by the CIT(A). Regarding the disallowance of salary expenses of Rs. 1,68,000/-, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's finding. The AO had disallowed the expenses because the confirmations from employees Shri Pradeep Maal and Shri Deen Dayal Sharma were contradictory to their statements, and the assessee failed to produce supporting books of account, bank details, or mode of payment. The Tribunal confirmed this addition. Concerning the claim for depreciation of Rs. 2,11,921/- and vehicle insurance of Rs. 9,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the registration certificates and insurance of the motor cars were filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation and insurance charges. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders passed by the CIT(A) were cryptic, lacking reference to the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, and the opportunities of hearing provided. The CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions and paper books filed by the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all four appellate orders and remanded them to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee, consider the written submissions, and pass a speaking order addressing both the grounds of appeal and the merits of the case, including jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case at that juncture. A copy of the order was marked to the Chairman, CBDT, for appropriate instructions to Faceless Appellate Commissioners to pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders passed by the CIT(A) were cryptic, lacking reference to the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, and the opportunities of hearing provided. The CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions and paper books filed by the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all four appellate orders and remanded them to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee, consider the written submissions, and pass a speaking order addressing both the grounds of appeal and the merits of the case, including jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case at that juncture. A copy of the order was marked to the Chairman, CBDT, for appropriate instructions to Faceless Appellate Commissioners to pass speaking orders.
The ITAT held that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was not corroborated and was, in fact, contrary to the facts on record. Specifically, the ITAT noted that the email IDs used for communication with the department, as evidenced by notices under Section 148 and subsequent Income Tax Returns (ITRs), appeared to belong to consultants (e.g., abhayjain.ca@gmail.com and rameshcjainassociatesca@yahoo.co.in) and not solely to the accountant who claimed exclusive access. The Tribunal found it incomprehensible that such consultant email IDs would be accessible only to the assessee's accountant. Furthermore, the ITAT observed a lack of evidence to support the claim that the accountant, Shri Prateek Sharma, left the assessee's service in October 2023. The Tribunal also found the assessee's claim of being informed by the ITO telephonically about the CIT(A)'s order in March 2025 to be absurd and unsubstantiated, as the department denied this, and there was no logical reason for such communication after nearly a year. Consequently, the ITAT did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders passed by the CIT(A) were cryptic, lacking reference to the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, and the opportunities of hearing provided. The CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions and paper books filed by the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all four appellate orders and remanded them to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee, consider the written submissions, and pass a speaking order addressing both the grounds of appeal and the merits of the case, including jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case at that juncture. A copy of the order was marked to the Chairman, CBDT, for appropriate instructions to Faceless Appellate Commissioners to pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal, challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings due to non-service of notice under Section 148, was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the AO's report indicated the notice was sent via speed post with dispatch number 3435 and was not returned unserved. The assessee's affidavit of non-service was contrasted with the AO's report and the copy of the notice. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. M/s I Ven Interactive Ltd., which held that a notice issued to the address in the PAN database, in compliance with Section 282, is to be treated as validly served, and actual receipt is immaterial if issued within the prescribed time. The assessee's counsel was unable to distinguish this precedent. Consequently, the plea regarding lack of jurisdiction was rejected. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the addition of Rs. 12,11,300/-, the Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex parte. The assessee submitted an affidavit stating the cash was received from her husband and son. Since the assessee had remained unheard by the lower authorities, the issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration after examining the evidence and explanation. The remaining grounds, including interest under Sections 234B and 234D, were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to make the investment in the partnership firm. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had share capital and reserves totaling Rs. 16 crores and advances from customers amounting to Rs. 27 crores. Even if Rs. 12 crores of share capital and reserves were considered utilized for prior investments, the remaining Rs. 4 crores, along with the Rs. 27 crores in customer advances, were more than sufficient for the Rs. 9.31 crores investment made during the year. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had paid a small amount of interest on customer advances but found that these advances were largely interest-free. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 52 (SC), the Tribunal held that the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to meet the investment is enough to allow the deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that customer advances should have been used for business purposes, stating that the manner of fund utilization is a business decision. The disallowance of Rs. 34,91,621/- was directed to be deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds concerning the validity of the assessment and the addition of the gross amount. Regarding the validity of the show cause notice (Ground 2 of additional grounds), the Tribunal noted that the notice detailed the AO's dissatisfaction with the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits, the lack of documentary evidence for cash sales, and the anomalies in cash sales being reflected only in a specific period. The Tribunal found that the AO had serious doubts about the claim that cash deposits were out of cash sales, and the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove this. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the entire cash deposit as income from undisclosed sources. The contention that only the net profit element should have been added was rejected as the assessee failed to establish that the deposits emanated from cash sales. The Tribunal also held that there was no rejection of books of accounts, implied or otherwise, by the AO, thus demolishing the premise of Ground 3 of the additional grounds. Consequently, all grounds raised on merits were dismissed. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's oral plea that the invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act was incorrect for AY 2017-18, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. The AO was directed to compute taxes as per normal provisions. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in refusing to admit the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided adequate reasons for not appearing before the AO and for not furnishing all evidences earlier, stating that he had engaged a consultant and was mostly out of town for business. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient grounds for rejecting the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had furnished all possible evidences to prove the genuineness of its claims, including sales statements, a certificate from M/s Rajasthali, bank statements for exhibition expenses, and vouchers with Aadhar cards for wages. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed him to entertain the additional evidences, verify them, and seek necessary information to determine the true income liable to tax, after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee provides reasonable and sufficient cause for not producing evidence during assessment proceedings and subsequently furnishes relevant evidence before the appellate authority, the appellate authority should admit such evidence to ascertain the true income, rather than upholding an ex-parte assessment based on non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders passed by the CIT(A) were cryptic, lacking reference to the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, and the opportunities of hearing provided. The CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions and paper books filed by the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all four appellate orders and remanded them to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee, consider the written submissions, and pass a speaking order addressing both the grounds of appeal and the merits of the case, including jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case at that juncture. A copy of the order was marked to the Chairman, CBDT, for appropriate instructions to Faceless Appellate Commissioners to pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the rebate under Section 87A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2024-25, notwithstanding that the total income includes taxable short-term capital gains chargeable at special rates under Section 111A. The Tribunal reasoned that there is no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A for denying the rebate in such circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Bill 2025 proposes prospective amendments to Section 87A, implying that no such restriction was in force for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. Director General of Income Tax (Systems), which held that system-based denials cannot override statutory rights and that each case must be adjudicated on its merits. The Tribunal found that the denial of rebate by the CPC was based on system-driven logic rather than statutory mandate. The CIT(A)'s interpretation upholding the denial was considered not in consonance with the plain language of the law. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the rebate of Rs. 25,000/- claimed by the assessee under Section 87A and recompute the tax liability. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue solely on the basis of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision, which had been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others. The Supreme Court's order, dated 10.04.2026, set aside the High Court judgments on the limited ground that the JAOs lacked competence to initiate proceedings, and this view was altered by subsequent amendments. The Supreme Court remitted the matters to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration, granting liberty to the assessees to amend their petitions and to the Revenue to file submissions. Crucially, the Supreme Court stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity, or applicability of the amended provisions. Given that the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision was based on a High Court order that was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court, and no decision on the merits was rendered by the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as directed by the Apex Court. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had declined registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) primarily on the grounds of an incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee's counsel requested one more opportunity to file a complete/correct Form 10AB and stated that an application for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, was pending and expected to be issued shortly. Considering these submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more adequate opportunity to the appellant to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the CIT(E). The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after providing this opportunity. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in Form 29B, which was irreconcilable with the audited financial statements, indeed amounted to a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a revised Form 29B, which was duly reconciled with the audited financial statements. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable and set it aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on the revised Form 29B, reconciled with the audited financial statements, in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that an error in a statutory form, which is inconsistent with the audited financials and can be corrected with a revised form, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, warranting rectification under Section 154. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the finding of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, which held that each institution run by the assessee society is required to be separately assessed, and the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Since the assessee's income was held to be exempt, it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB, and consequently, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted. Regarding the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal held that when the assessee's income is exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, it was not required to file a return of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271F was also not sustainable and ordered to be deleted. Both appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had declined registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) primarily on the grounds of an incomplete Form 10AB and non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The assessee's counsel requested one more opportunity to file a complete/correct Form 10AB and stated that an application for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, was pending and expected to be issued shortly. Considering these submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more adequate opportunity to the appellant to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the CIT(E). The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after providing this opportunity. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), emphasizing a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. Regarding the addition under Section 41(1), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had principally agreed to the addition before the AO, and the CIT(A) had found the assessee's explanation before him to be general and unsubstantiated. The Tribunal did not decide this issue on merits as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes on the second ground. Concerning the disallowance of transport expenditure, the Tribunal held that the assessee's plea that the AO did not issue a show cause notice constituted a sufficient reason for not producing the vouchers before the AO earlier. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence (transport bills) as they contained details of transporters and were easily verifiable. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and adjudicate the issue afresh after necessary verification. Ground of appeal No.2 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes. Regarding the denial of 12A registration, the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had denied it on the grounds of non-registration under the RPT Act and lack of genuineness of activities, a certificate of registration under the RPT Act, dated 16.12.2024, was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that sufficient opportunity of hearing might not have been given to the assessee by the CIT(E) to establish the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to take note of the RPT Act registration, verify it, and provide the assessee an opportunity to establish the genuineness of its activities before passing a fresh order. Consequently, the denial of 80G approval, being consequential to the 12A registration, was also restored to the file of the CIT(E) to be reconsidered along with the 12A application.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes. Regarding the denial of 12A registration, the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had denied it on the grounds of non-registration under the RPT Act and lack of genuineness of activities, a certificate of registration under the RPT Act, dated 16.12.2024, was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that sufficient opportunity of hearing might not have been given to the assessee by the CIT(E) to establish the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to take note of the RPT Act registration, verify it, and provide the assessee an opportunity to establish the genuineness of its activities before passing a fresh order. Consequently, the denial of 80G approval, being consequential to the 12A registration, was also restored to the file of the CIT(E) to be reconsidered along with the 12A application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to prove its case before the Ld. CIT(E). The rejection of the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G was based solely on the non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had initiated the process for registration under the said Act and had taken steps such as issuing notices. Therefore, to substantiate justice, both appeals were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh in accordance with the law upon production of necessary documents by the appellant, specifically the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration certificate. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.