ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The affidavit explained that the appellate order was received by the authorized representative, who communicated it to a former cashier. The Secretary only became aware of the order later and then sought professional advice. The Tribunal condoned this delay and admitted the appeal. Regarding the delay of 250 days before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the explanation in the affidavit satisfactory. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's participation in assessment proceedings does not automatically mean it was aware of the orders passed, nor does it imply the delay was deliberate. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that sufficient cause was shown for the delay before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on delay.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were valid. It reasoned that the proviso to section 12AA(4) of the Act, which states that exemption under section 11 shall not be denied if registration is granted, applies only if assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. In this case, the registration was granted on 05.08.2019, and reassessment notices were issued in March 2021, well after the registration date, and no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to provide any computation of income application or accumulation, nor did it furnish an audit report in Form 10B. For assessment year 2019-20, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the exemption claim under section 11, as the application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding the failure to invoke specific provisions, stating that income is charged under section 4 and heads of income are for computation. It also noted that for AY 2019-20, section 11 was invoked. Regarding Ground No. 4 (computation of income), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues of chargeability under sections 10(20), 10(46), Article 289 of the Constitution, and sections 11 and 12 were not to be reopened. The AO was directed to examine all aspects of computation, including the head of income, based on material on record and produced by the assessee. Ground No. 5 regarding interest was consequential. The appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were valid. It reasoned that the proviso to section 12AA(4) of the Act, which states that exemption under section 11 shall not be denied if registration is granted, applies only if assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. In this case, the registration was granted on 05.08.2019, and reassessment notices were issued in March 2021, well after the registration date, and no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to provide any computation of income application or accumulation, nor did it furnish an audit report in Form 10B. For assessment year 2019-20, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the exemption claim under section 11, as the application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding the failure to invoke specific provisions, stating that income is charged under section 4 and heads of income are for computation. It also noted that for AY 2019-20, section 11 was invoked. Regarding Ground No. 4 (computation of income), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues of chargeability under sections 10(20), 10(46), Article 289 of the Constitution, and sections 11 and 12 were not to be reopened. The AO was directed to examine all aspects of computation, including the head of income, based on material on record and produced by the assessee. Ground No. 5 regarding interest was consequential. The appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were valid. It reasoned that the proviso to section 12AA(4) of the Act, which states that exemption under section 11 shall not be denied if registration is granted, applies only if assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. In this case, the registration was granted on 05.08.2019, and reassessment notices were issued in March 2021, well after the registration date, and no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to provide any computation of income application or accumulation, nor did it furnish an audit report in Form 10B. For assessment year 2019-20, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the exemption claim under section 11, as the application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding the failure to invoke specific provisions, stating that income is charged under section 4 and heads of income are for computation. It also noted that for AY 2019-20, section 11 was invoked. Regarding Ground No. 4 (computation of income), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues of chargeability under sections 10(20), 10(46), Article 289 of the Constitution, and sections 11 and 12 were not to be reopened. The AO was directed to examine all aspects of computation, including the head of income, based on material on record and produced by the assessee. Ground No. 5 regarding interest was consequential. The appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G were not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to produce requisite documents. The deficiency letter was issued with a very short compliance period, and an adjournment request was denied, leading to a decision without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. This failure to provide an adequate opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The direction was to grant registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G upon rectification of the application in Form 10AB and production of the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should not have summarily dismissed the application for a clerical error. It reasoned that when the facts recorded in the application indicate that it was filed under the wrong clause, a quasi-judicial authority has the power to issue approval under the correct clause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already been issued a certificate of registration under section 12AB of the Act. Therefore, consequential approval under section 80G could not be withheld merely due to a clerical error on the part of the appellant. The CIT(E) was directed to issue approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act under the correct clause upon production of requisite documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) was not empowered to initiate cancellation proceedings under section 80G(5)(vi) as alleged by the assessee, but the core issue was the erroneous filing of the application for approval.

The Tribunal held that the delays in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, were to be condoned as there was a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal reasoned that the notices were admittedly sent to a secondary email ID belonging to the assessee's Chartered Accountant, Shri Sunil Mittal. It was the professional obligation of the CA to intimate or forward these notices to the assessee and pursue the appeals. The Tribunal opined that if the delay was caused due to the mistake, negligence, or professional misconduct of the hired CA, the assessee should not suffer, as the assessee has a statutory right to be heard on merits. Therefore, the delay of 390 days in ITA Nos. 1384/JPR/2026 and 1385/JPR/2026, and the delay of 40 days in ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026, before the Ld. CIT(A) were condoned. Consequently, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine were set aside. The Tribunal also condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, for similar reasons. The appeals were remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee on merits. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's neurological disorder, supported by an affidavit and prescription slip, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others. Regarding the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had provided only three opportunities with short intervals and it was not clear if these notices were served. To achieve substantial justice and prevent multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A was not sustainable as there was no 'incriminating material' found during the search for the completed and un-abated assessment years. The statement of Shri Vijay Data regarding 'Dharmada/Charity' collected on sales bills, even if unutilized, was recorded in the books of accounts and subjected to audit. Therefore, it did not constitute 'incriminating material' to warrant proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal followed the decision in Hari Industries vs. CIT (Raj. H.C.) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (SC), stating that Dharmada/Charity collected and recorded in the books does not form part of taxable income, and the initiation of Section 153A proceedings was bad in law. Consequently, the addition on this ground was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on subsidy for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that it was also recorded in the books of accounts and no incriminating material was referred to by the AO. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the subsidy was a capital receipt and the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance. The Tribunal also observed that the unutilized Dharmada/Charity funds lying for years had lost their sanctity and recommended the CBDT to take cognizance. The first and second questions were answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively. The fourth issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A was not sustainable as there was no 'incriminating material' found during the search for the completed and un-abated assessment years. The statement of Shri Vijay Data regarding 'Dharmada/Charity' collected on sales bills, even if unutilized, was recorded in the books of accounts and subjected to audit. Therefore, it did not constitute 'incriminating material' to warrant proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal followed the decision in Hari Industries vs. CIT (Raj. H.C.) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (SC), stating that Dharmada/Charity collected and recorded in the books does not form part of taxable income, and the initiation of Section 153A proceedings was bad in law. Consequently, the addition on this ground was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on subsidy for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that it was also recorded in the books of accounts and no incriminating material was referred to by the AO. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the subsidy was a capital receipt and the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance. The Tribunal also observed that the unutilized Dharmada/Charity funds lying for years had lost their sanctity and recommended the CBDT to take cognizance. The first and second questions were answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively. The fourth issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A was not sustainable as there was no 'incriminating material' found during the search for the completed and un-abated assessment years. The statement of Shri Vijay Data regarding 'Dharmada/Charity' collected on sales bills, even if unutilized, was recorded in the books of accounts and subjected to audit. Therefore, it did not constitute 'incriminating material' to warrant proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal followed the decision in Hari Industries vs. CIT (Raj. H.C.) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (SC), stating that Dharmada/Charity collected and recorded in the books does not form part of taxable income, and the initiation of Section 153A proceedings was bad in law. Consequently, the addition on this ground was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on subsidy for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that it was also recorded in the books of accounts and no incriminating material was referred to by the AO. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the subsidy was a capital receipt and the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance. The Tribunal also observed that the unutilized Dharmada/Charity funds lying for years had lost their sanctity and recommended the CBDT to take cognizance. The first and second questions were answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively. The fourth issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A was not sustainable as there was no 'incriminating material' found during the search for the completed and un-abated assessment years. The statement of Shri Vijay Data regarding 'Dharmada/Charity' collected on sales bills, even if unutilized, was recorded in the books of accounts and subjected to audit. Therefore, it did not constitute 'incriminating material' to warrant proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal followed the decision in Hari Industries vs. CIT (Raj. H.C.) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (SC), stating that Dharmada/Charity collected and recorded in the books does not form part of taxable income, and the initiation of Section 153A proceedings was bad in law. Consequently, the addition on this ground was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on subsidy for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that it was also recorded in the books of accounts and no incriminating material was referred to by the AO. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the subsidy was a capital receipt and the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance. The Tribunal also observed that the unutilized Dharmada/Charity funds lying for years had lost their sanctity and recommended the CBDT to take cognizance. The first and second questions were answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively. The fourth issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G were not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to produce requisite documents. The deficiency letter was issued with a very short compliance period, and an adjournment request was denied, leading to a decision without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. This failure to provide an adequate opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The direction was to grant registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G upon rectification of the application in Form 10AB and production of the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, subject to verification. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted Forms 2 and 3 as proof of payment of the settled amount. In light of this, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deemed not sustainable. However, the Tribunal directed that Forms 2 and 3 would be subject to verification by the concerned Assessing Officer to confirm the actual deposit of the settled amount as per the settlement. Upon successful verification, the Assessing Officer is to issue Forms 4 and 5 to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including payment of the settled amount, renders prior additions unsustainable, pending verification.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. The matter was remanded back to the learned CIT(E) to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The reasoning was that the appellant had subsequently applied for registration under the RPT Act, 1959, vide an application dated 31.03.2026, which was under process. Since the appellant had applied for this registration, it was entitled to one more opportunity to get its case decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was required to be placed before the CIT(E) to consider the issuance of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act under the rules. The ratio decidendi is that a pending application for a statutory registration, if filed before or around the time of the impugned order, should be considered, and the assessee should be granted an opportunity to complete the formalities, rather than outright rejection of the 12AB registration application.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly considered the proviso to Section 87A of the Act. This proviso allows a rebate under Section 87A if the assessee's total income is chargeable under Section 115BAC(1A) and does not exceed Rs. 7,00,000. The assessee's total income was Rs. 4,89,910, which is below the Rs. 7,00,000 threshold. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the rebate under Section 87A. The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned and that the restriction of the rebate by the AO/CPC was not sustainable in law. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The issue regarding STCG and Section 111A was implicitly addressed by focusing on the proviso to Section 87A and the total income threshold under Section 115BAC(1A), indicating that the primary consideration was the eligibility based on total income and the specific tax regime opted for, rather than the nature of income alone.

The Tribunal held that the delays in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, were to be condoned as there was a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal reasoned that the notices were admittedly sent to a secondary email ID belonging to the assessee's Chartered Accountant, Shri Sunil Mittal. It was the professional obligation of the CA to intimate or forward these notices to the assessee and pursue the appeals. The Tribunal opined that if the delay was caused due to the mistake, negligence, or professional misconduct of the hired CA, the assessee should not suffer, as the assessee has a statutory right to be heard on merits. Therefore, the delay of 390 days in ITA Nos. 1384/JPR/2026 and 1385/JPR/2026, and the delay of 40 days in ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026, before the Ld. CIT(A) were condoned. Consequently, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine were set aside. The Tribunal also condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, for similar reasons. The appeals were remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee on merits. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delays in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, were to be condoned as there was a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal reasoned that the notices were admittedly sent to a secondary email ID belonging to the assessee's Chartered Accountant, Shri Sunil Mittal. It was the professional obligation of the CA to intimate or forward these notices to the assessee and pursue the appeals. The Tribunal opined that if the delay was caused due to the mistake, negligence, or professional misconduct of the hired CA, the assessee should not suffer, as the assessee has a statutory right to be heard on merits. Therefore, the delay of 390 days in ITA Nos. 1384/JPR/2026 and 1385/JPR/2026, and the delay of 40 days in ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026, before the Ld. CIT(A) were condoned. Consequently, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine were set aside. The Tribunal also condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, for similar reasons. The appeals were remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee on merits. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The total tax effect in this case was Rs. 20,680, which is well below the mandatory limit of Rs. 60,00,000 prescribed for filing appeals by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as per CBDT Circular 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the case regarding the allowability of rebate under Section 87A on STCG for AY 2025-26, as the appeal was dismissed on a preliminary ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the rebate under Section 87A. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee's total income was below the threshold limit of Rs. 7,00,000/- as specified for the rebate under Section 87A, and also below the limit of Rs. 25,000/- for the rebate amount itself. The Tribunal noted that while Section 112A(6) explicitly excludes Long Term Capital Gains from the rebate under Section 87A, no such condition is mentioned for Short Term Capital Gains under Section 111A. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance was found to be well-reasoned and did not warrant interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, finding 'sufficient cause' in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that technical/procedural problems are common in faceless proceedings, especially for assessees who are not tech-savvy. The assessee's explanation of learning about the assessment order only on 10.05.2024, supported by a demand recovery notice dated 24.04.2024, was considered a sustainable reason for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need for liberal interpretation of limitation provisions, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji and Others. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, and the assessee had not appeared before the AO, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence, including bank statements, power of attorney, and sale deeds.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had erred in cancelling the application for registration under Section 80G(5). The primary reasoning was that the CIT(E) had subsequently granted registration to the assessee under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by an order dated September 27, 2026. The Tribunal found that all objections raised by the CIT(E) while rejecting the Section 80G application had become infructuous, as they had already been addressed and decided in favor of the assessee during the Section 12AB registration process. Since approval under Section 80G is consequential to registration under Section 12AB, and the latter had been granted, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The operative direction was for the Ld. CIT(E) to issue the approval under Section 80G in accordance with the law. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not come forward to controvert the findings of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) had rejected the application on two main grounds. Firstly, regarding the wrong section code, the CIT(E) observed that the assessee had filed its application in Form 10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B), which is for entities that have commenced activities but have not claimed benefits under Sections 10, 11, or 12 in earlier years. However, the assessee's ITRs and the undertaking in Form 10AB clearly indicated that it had claimed benefits under Sections 11 and 12 in earlier years. The assessee's attempt to argue for consideration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was not accepted as the application was explicitly filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B). Secondly, regarding the non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the CIT(E) found that the assessee was not registered under this Act, which was considered a violation of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) read with Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Noble Education Society. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and confirmed it. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. The revenue representative had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were valid. It reasoned that the proviso to section 12AA(4) of the Act, which states that exemption under section 11 shall not be denied if registration is granted, applies only if assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. In this case, the registration was granted on 05.08.2019, and reassessment notices were issued in March 2021, well after the registration date, and no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to provide any computation of income application or accumulation, nor did it furnish an audit report in Form 10B. For assessment year 2019-20, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the exemption claim under section 11, as the application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding the failure to invoke specific provisions, stating that income is charged under section 4 and heads of income are for computation. It also noted that for AY 2019-20, section 11 was invoked. Regarding Ground No. 4 (computation of income), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues of chargeability under sections 10(20), 10(46), Article 289 of the Constitution, and sections 11 and 12 were not to be reopened. The AO was directed to examine all aspects of computation, including the head of income, based on material on record and produced by the assessee. Ground No. 5 regarding interest was consequential. The appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were valid. It reasoned that the proviso to section 12AA(4) of the Act, which states that exemption under section 11 shall not be denied if registration is granted, applies only if assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. In this case, the registration was granted on 05.08.2019, and reassessment notices were issued in March 2021, well after the registration date, and no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to provide any computation of income application or accumulation, nor did it furnish an audit report in Form 10B. For assessment year 2019-20, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the exemption claim under section 11, as the application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding the failure to invoke specific provisions, stating that income is charged under section 4 and heads of income are for computation. It also noted that for AY 2019-20, section 11 was invoked. Regarding Ground No. 4 (computation of income), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues of chargeability under sections 10(20), 10(46), Article 289 of the Constitution, and sections 11 and 12 were not to be reopened. The AO was directed to examine all aspects of computation, including the head of income, based on material on record and produced by the assessee. Ground No. 5 regarding interest was consequential. The appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were valid. It reasoned that the proviso to section 12AA(4) of the Act, which states that exemption under section 11 shall not be denied if registration is granted, applies only if assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. In this case, the registration was granted on 05.08.2019, and reassessment notices were issued in March 2021, well after the registration date, and no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to provide any computation of income application or accumulation, nor did it furnish an audit report in Form 10B. For assessment year 2019-20, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the exemption claim under section 11, as the application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding the failure to invoke specific provisions, stating that income is charged under section 4 and heads of income are for computation. It also noted that for AY 2019-20, section 11 was invoked. Regarding Ground No. 4 (computation of income), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The issues of chargeability under sections 10(20), 10(46), Article 289 of the Constitution, and sections 11 and 12 were not to be reopened. The AO was directed to examine all aspects of computation, including the head of income, based on material on record and produced by the assessee. Ground No. 5 regarding interest was consequential. The appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the commission income of ₹8,06,600. The dispute was confined to the allowability of business expenditure. The CIT(A) had disallowed these expenses for want of supporting evidence. Since the assessee expressed willingness to furnish the requisite evidence, the Tribunal restored this limited issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO is to examine the supporting evidence and determine the allowability of the expenditure in accordance with law, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The commission income determined by the CIT(A) is to remain undisturbed. The other grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed and were dismissed as not pressed. The appeal was allowed partly for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the contention that Rule 6DD(e) extends to payments made indirectly to cultivators through an agent cannot be accepted, as the clause specifically contemplates direct payment to the cultivator, grower, or producer. The mere assertion that an intermediary subsequently disbursed the money to the farmers does not bring the payment within this exception. Therefore, the claim under Rule 6DD(e) was rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the alternative claim under Rule 6DD(k) stood on a distinct footing, depending on whether Shri Pradeep Kumar was the assessee's agent required to make cash payments for goods on her behalf. The additional evidence furnished by the assessee, including farmers' affidavits, required examination along with relevant books of account and the alleged agency arrangement, which had not been verified by the Assessing Officer. In the interests of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the claim under Rule 6DD(k), considering the admitted additional evidence and other relevant material, and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside to the extent of the disputed amount for this limited purpose.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that a subsequent order dated 24.09.2026 had been issued by the CIT(E) granting registration to the trust in Form No. 10AD. This subsequent development rendered the original appeal against the order dated 26.03.2026 infructuous. Since the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal, the Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that both appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the preliminary objection raised by the assessee concerning the CBDT Circulars prescribing a monetary limit for filing appeals. The tax effect in AY 2020-21 was Rs. 7,12,014 and in AY 2021-22 was Rs. 1,93,718, both of which were below the Rs. 60 lakh limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024. The Revenue's representative failed to demonstrate that the present appeals fell within any of the exceptions provided in these circulars, despite being given an opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for entertaining the appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss both appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative submitted an application for withdrawal of the appeal dated 06.10.2026. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stated that they had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The reasoning is based on the consent of both parties to the withdrawal. The operative direction is that the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn before merits were considered.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent development of the learned CIT(E) granting registration under Section 12AB of the Act, covering the assessment year under consideration, has a direct bearing on the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11. This subsequent development requires consideration by the appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) and the applicable provisions of law, and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing a speaking order. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were unsustainable in law. The primary issue revolved around the monetary threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149 of the Act for issuing notices beyond three years, which is to be examined with reference to the income chargeable to tax alleged to have escaped assessment, not merely the gross sale consideration. The Tribunal noted that the registered sale deed clearly indicated the property was jointly owned by four persons, making the assessee's one-fourth share in the sale consideration ₹42,25,250, which is below the ₹50 lakh threshold. The assessee's failure to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) did not justify disregarding the material available on record, specifically the sale deed showing co-ownership. The Tribunal relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Nitin Nema v. Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and a coordinate bench's decision in Vipendra Ravindra Mandal v. ITO, emphasizing the distinction between gross sale consideration and income chargeable to tax. The Tribunal also invoked the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd., favoring the view favorable to the assessee when two interpretations are possible. Consequently, the jurisdictional condition for invoking the extended period of limitation was not satisfied, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. The grounds challenging the addition on merits were rendered academic.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1,160 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's bona fide belief, the tax practitioner's affidavit, and medical circumstances, citing the justice-oriented interpretation of 'sufficient cause' from Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji. On merits, the Tribunal held that the enhanced exemption limit of Rs.25,00,000/- introduced by CBDT Notification No.31/2023 dated 24.05.2023 is applicable to the assessee's claim for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal respectfully agreed with the decisions of coordinate benches, including Renu Moongia, which allowed the benefit of the enhanced limit. The reasoning was that CBDT circulars, if beneficial, can mitigate the rigors of the law, and the enhanced limit was below the assessee's claim. The ratio decidendi is that an enhanced exemption limit notified by the CBDT, even if issued after the relevant assessment year, can be applied if it is beneficial to the assessee and is supported by judicial precedents of coordinate benches. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim for exemption of Rs.9,92,880/- under Section 10(10AA).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to get its accounts audited, within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, and therefore, the penalties were deleted. The reasoning was multifaceted: (a) The assessee, a statutory body, had a bona fide belief that it was a local authority exempt under Section 10(20), a position supported by the Rajasthan High Court until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise on 12.10.2018. This belief, held before the specified audit dates, could not be considered fanciful. (b) The assessee's accounts were subject to annual audit by the Examiner of Local Fund Audit under Section 68(2) of the 1959 Act, suggesting a reasonable belief that a separate tax audit was not required. (c) The AO did not compute the assessee's income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" in any of the assessment orders, indicating that the assessee's activities were not treated as business by the AO. The Tribunal cited CIT v. Market Committee, Sirsa (supra) on the inapplicability of Section 44AB where income is not computed under the head 'business or profession'. (d) The default was technical, the penalty was a fixed sum, and no concealment or loss of revenue was shown. The Tribunal deleted the penalties of Rs. 1,50,000 for each assessment year. Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the penalty proceedings were initiated and completed within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to get its accounts audited, within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, and therefore, the penalties were deleted. The reasoning was multifaceted: (a) The assessee, a statutory body, had a bona fide belief that it was a local authority exempt under Section 10(20), a position supported by the Rajasthan High Court until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise on 12.10.2018. This belief, held before the specified audit dates, could not be considered fanciful. (b) The assessee's accounts were subject to annual audit by the Examiner of Local Fund Audit under Section 68(2) of the 1959 Act, suggesting a reasonable belief that a separate tax audit was not required. (c) The AO did not compute the assessee's income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" in any of the assessment orders, indicating that the assessee's activities were not treated as business by the AO. The Tribunal cited CIT v. Market Committee, Sirsa (supra) on the inapplicability of Section 44AB where income is not computed under the head 'business or profession'. (d) The default was technical, the penalty was a fixed sum, and no concealment or loss of revenue was shown. The Tribunal deleted the penalties of Rs. 1,50,000 for each assessment year. Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the penalty proceedings were initiated and completed within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to get its accounts audited, within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, and therefore, the penalties were deleted. The reasoning was multifaceted: (a) The assessee, a statutory body, had a bona fide belief that it was a local authority exempt under Section 10(20), a position supported by the Rajasthan High Court until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise on 12.10.2018. This belief, held before the specified audit dates, could not be considered fanciful. (b) The assessee's accounts were subject to annual audit by the Examiner of Local Fund Audit under Section 68(2) of the 1959 Act, suggesting a reasonable belief that a separate tax audit was not required. (c) The AO did not compute the assessee's income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" in any of the assessment orders, indicating that the assessee's activities were not treated as business by the AO. The Tribunal cited CIT v. Market Committee, Sirsa (supra) on the inapplicability of Section 44AB where income is not computed under the head 'business or profession'. (d) The default was technical, the penalty was a fixed sum, and no concealment or loss of revenue was shown. The Tribunal deleted the penalties of Rs. 1,50,000 for each assessment year. Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the penalty proceedings were initiated and completed within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to get its accounts audited, within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, and therefore, the penalties were deleted. The reasoning was multifaceted: (a) The assessee, a statutory body, had a bona fide belief that it was a local authority exempt under Section 10(20), a position supported by the Rajasthan High Court until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise on 12.10.2018. This belief, held before the specified audit dates, could not be considered fanciful. (b) The assessee's accounts were subject to annual audit by the Examiner of Local Fund Audit under Section 68(2) of the 1959 Act, suggesting a reasonable belief that a separate tax audit was not required. (c) The AO did not compute the assessee's income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" in any of the assessment orders, indicating that the assessee's activities were not treated as business by the AO. The Tribunal cited CIT v. Market Committee, Sirsa (supra) on the inapplicability of Section 44AB where income is not computed under the head 'business or profession'. (d) The default was technical, the penalty was a fixed sum, and no concealment or loss of revenue was shown. The Tribunal deleted the penalties of Rs. 1,50,000 for each assessment year. Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the penalty proceedings were initiated and completed within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for making an addition under Section 153A in respect of an unabated assessment is the existence of incriminating material found during the search. The Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC) settled this legal position. In the present case, the assessment year 2015-16 was an unabated assessment as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued within the prescribed period. The addition of Rs. 10,00,000 was based on AIR and CIB transaction information and the rejection of the assessee's explanation, not on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the jurisdictional condition for Section 153A was not satisfied. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 69A could not be sustained. The consequential application of Section 115BBE, being dependent on the addition, also did not survive. The grounds challenging the addition on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal considered the letter filed by the assessee requesting withdrawal of the appeals. The letter stated that the assessee had obtained registration under the Income Tax Act, 2025, vide Form No. 107 dated 27.08.2026, valid for Assessment Years 2026-27 to 2030-31. The assessee contended that this subsequent registration fully resolved the grievance that was the subject matter of the appeals, and no further adjudication was required. The Ld. DR for the revenue did not object to this request. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss both appeals as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal considered the letter filed by the assessee requesting withdrawal of the appeals. The letter stated that the assessee had obtained registration under the Income Tax Act, 2025, vide Form No. 107 dated 27.08.2026, valid for Assessment Years 2026-27 to 2030-31. The assessee contended that this subsequent registration fully resolved the grievance that was the subject matter of the appeals, and no further adjudication was required. The Ld. DR for the revenue did not object to this request. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss both appeals as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the materials, including the copy of the registration application in Form No. 6 dated 12.10.2026 issued by the RPT authority, decided to set aside the matters. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the CIT(E) for passing the order of registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that when a crucial document like the RPT registration application is submitted, and the revenue has no objection, it is appropriate to provide an opportunity for re-adjudication to ensure compliance with the law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO had disturbed the net profit rate and turnover beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without proper approval. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. Regarding the interest limb of Section 14A (Ground No. 2), the Tribunal held that the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments, and the overdraft was in use during the year. Following the principle in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, where own funds are available, investments are presumed to be out of interest-free funds. Therefore, no interest could be said to have been incurred in relation to exempt income. The disallowance of Rs. 10,04,358 under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was directed to be deleted. For the expenditure limb of Section 14A (Grounds 1 and 3), the Tribunal found that the availability of own funds has no bearing on managerial and administrative effort. The assessee's claim of Rs. 60,000 was an estimate filed for the first time before the ITAT, approximately nine years after the relevant letter, and was not supported by contemporaneous basis or a proper working considering the scale of investment activity. The reliance on AY 2016-17 was not accepted as Section 14A was not examined in that year. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 12,53,742 under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustained. Consequently, the total disallowance under Section 14A was reduced to Rs. 12,53,742. Regarding Rule 46A (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal held that the assessee suffered no prejudice as the appeal was decided on merits after considering all material. For interest under Section 234B (Ground No. 5), it was allowed for statistical purposes to be recomputed on the total income as determined by the order. Interest under Section 234C (Ground No. 6) was dismissed as it was computed on the returned income, which remained Rs. 1,28,18,940, and the letter dated 26.10.2017 was not a return.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to get its accounts audited, within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act, and therefore, the penalties were deleted. The reasoning was multifaceted: (a) The assessee, a statutory body, had a bona fide belief that it was a local authority exempt under Section 10(20), a position supported by the Rajasthan High Court until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise on 12.10.2018. This belief, held before the specified audit dates, could not be considered fanciful. (b) The assessee's accounts were subject to annual audit by the Examiner of Local Fund Audit under Section 68(2) of the 1959 Act, suggesting a reasonable belief that a separate tax audit was not required. (c) The AO did not compute the assessee's income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" in any of the assessment orders, indicating that the assessee's activities were not treated as business by the AO. The Tribunal cited CIT v. Market Committee, Sirsa (supra) on the inapplicability of Section 44AB where income is not computed under the head 'business or profession'. (d) The default was technical, the penalty was a fixed sum, and no concealment or loss of revenue was shown. The Tribunal deleted the penalties of Rs. 1,50,000 for each assessment year. Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the penalty proceedings were initiated and completed within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the materials, including the copy of the registration application in Form No. 6 dated 12.10.2026 issued by the RPT authority, decided to set aside the matters. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the CIT(E) for passing the order of registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G(5) of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that when a crucial document like the RPT registration application is submitted, and the revenue has no objection, it is appropriate to provide an opportunity for re-adjudication to ensure compliance with the law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the rebate under section 87A of the Act is allowable on the tax computed on short-term capital gain offered to tax under section 111A of the Act, where the assessee has opted for the tax regime under section 115BAC of the Act for Assessment Year 2025-26. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, and the Revenue's representative was unable to present any contrary decision from a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court, nor could they distinguish the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana vs. ITO (ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2025), which allowed a similar rebate for AY 2024-25. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in ITA No. 1412/JPR/2025 for AY 2024-25, which held the rebate allowable in such situations. Respectfully following these decisions, the Tribunal found the Addl./JCIT(A)'s order to be in accordance with law and not requiring interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the rebate under Section 87A of the Act is allowable on the tax computed on short-term capital gain offered to tax under Section 111A of the Act, even when the assessee has opted for the tax regime under Section 115BAC of the Act for Assessment Year 2025-26. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, but the learned Departmental Representative could not provide any contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court, nor could they distinguish the decision relied upon by the learned Addl. CIT(A). The Tribunal also referred to its own prior decision in ITA No. 1412/JPR/2025 for AY 2024-25, which dealt with identical facts and held that the rebate under Section 87A is allowable. Respectfully following the settled view of coordinate benches and the absence of contrary precedent, the Tribunal found the rebate allowed by the Addl./JCIT(A) to be in accordance with law and not requiring interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.