ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2026

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, where the assessee has opted for the tax regime under section 115BAC for Assessment Year 2024-25. The Tribunal noted that this issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1412/JPR/2025 dated 25.06.2026, which considered identical facts and allowed the rebate. The Tribunal also found support in the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana vs. ITO. Since the Revenue could not present any contrary decision from a higher judicial authority and was unable to distinguish the precedents, the Tribunal respectfully followed the settled view. The Addl./JCIT(A)'s order allowing the rebate was found to be in accordance with law and required no interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 976 days in filing the appeals, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- in each appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the explanation for the delay was not entirely convincing, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the ex-parte disposal by the CIT(A), it was appropriate to grant the assessee an opportunity to have the appeals adjudicated on merits, citing the Supreme Court's emphasis on a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the quantum assessment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively represent her case before the CIT(A) and that affidavits supporting her stitching activity had not been examined by lower authorities. The assessee also sought an opportunity to substantiate the sources of investment. The AO was directed to examine the evidence for stitching activity and investment sources, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and decide afresh. The Tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the addition. Consequently, the penalty appeals under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were also restored to the AO for fresh consideration, pending the outcome of the quantum proceedings. All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 976 days in filing the appeals, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- in each appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the explanation for the delay was not entirely convincing, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the ex-parte disposal by the CIT(A), it was appropriate to grant the assessee an opportunity to have the appeals adjudicated on merits, citing the Supreme Court's emphasis on a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the quantum assessment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively represent her case before the CIT(A) and that affidavits supporting her stitching activity had not been examined by lower authorities. The assessee also sought an opportunity to substantiate the sources of investment. The AO was directed to examine the evidence for stitching activity and investment sources, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and decide afresh. The Tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the addition. Consequently, the penalty appeals under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were also restored to the AO for fresh consideration, pending the outcome of the quantum proceedings. All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 976 days in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. However, this was subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 3,000/- in each appeal. Regarding the quantum assessment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively represent her case before the CIT(A) and that affidavits supporting her stitching activity and the sources of investment had not been examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) concerning the quantum assessment was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the evidence for stitching activity and investment sources, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and decide afresh. The appeals relating to penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were also restored to the AO for fresh consideration, contingent on the outcome of the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition. All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was directed against the order rejecting the rectification application under Section 154. The Tribunal noted that the power of rectification under Section 154 is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review or reopen an issue that requires reconsideration beyond the scope of that provision. The NFAC had rejected the rectification application on the ground that no mistake apparent from the record was established. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the NFAC's order rejecting the rectification application. Consequently, the grounds challenging the merits of the disallowance under Section 80JJA and the consequential levy of interest were not required to be adjudicated in the present appeal, as the appeal was solely against the order rejecting rectification. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee was at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy against the original appellate order dated 27.11.2021, and any application for condonation of delay would be considered on its own merits by the competent Bench. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowance under Section 80JJA or the interest levied under Sections 234A/B/C.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and perused the materials on record, including the copy of the registration application in Form No. 6 dated 12.10.2026 issued by the RPT authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of hearing and then grant registration as per the provisions of law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee should cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E) for passing the order of registration under sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the materials on record, including the copy of the registration application in Form No. 6 dated 30.06.2026 issued by the RPT authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass an order for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act, provided the assessee cooperates by filing the required documents and details. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the original denial but remanded the case for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that where subsequent documentation rectifies the deficiencies leading to denial of registration, and the revenue has no objection, the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, including the registration application in Form No.6 dated 24.02.2026 issued by the RPT authority, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(E). The Tribunal reasoned that in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a further opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass an order for registration under section 12AB of the Act, in accordance with the law. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying no final decision on the merits of the registration itself was made at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 13,21,420/- by submitting Jamabandi, Girdavari, and Mandi slips, which were not found to be infirm by the Revenue. The Tribunal considered the non-furnishing of agricultural expenses as not vital to substantiate the income earned. Therefore, the source of cash deposits to this extent was deemed explained. Regarding dairy income, although no direct evidence was submitted, the Tribunal accepted the income of Rs. 2,35,820/- (which was accepted by the AO) as an explanation for the source of cash deposits, considering the scale of the business and the common practice of not generating bills for such small-scale dairy sales. However, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention regarding the cash flow statement and peak negative balance of Rs. 17,08,073/- because the statement was filed for the first time before the Tribunal without an application for admission or oral pleading, and no reason was given for its non-submission earlier. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's economic status and rural background, accepted a reasonable opening cash balance of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. Adjusting the peak negative balance by this amount and considering the explained sources, the Tribunal found an unexplained balance of Rs. 5,51,760/-, to which extent the addition made by the Revenue Authorities under Section 69A was confirmed. The ratio is that while evidence of income generation is crucial, the extent of substantiation required depends on the nature of the income and business, and additional evidence filed at the appellate stage without proper procedure may not be admitted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, thus quashing the impugned order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. The Tribunal noted that the AO had discussed the issue of CSR expenditure and deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A by considering the assessee's reply to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. The AO had specifically sought details regarding deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, and the assessee had provided details of the Section 80G deduction along with supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the issue was duly discussed and decided by the AO after due application of mind. Merely because the PCIT took a different view did not make the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal relied on the consistent view of the Tribunal in similar cases, such as American Express (India) P. Ltd. and ACIT vs. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd., which held that CSR expenses, although not allowable under Section 37(1), are eligible for deduction under Chapter VI-A and Section 80G if they satisfy the prescribed conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 80G operates independently of Section 37(1) and that donations forming part of CSR obligations cannot be denied deduction under Section 80G if they meet the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the PCIT's order was found to have failed legal scrutiny.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 400 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age (75 years), lack of email know-how, and the possibility of negligence by his counsel. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not record satisfaction regarding the service of notices issued to the assessee. The Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay, emphasizing the assessee's right to substantial justice. The Tribunal then heard the appeal on merits. The assessee contended that he was not served in the first appellate proceedings and that he is a senior citizen and non-filer who needs adequate opportunity. The Tribunal, finding merit in the assessee's argument regarding lack of proper service and the need for adequate opportunity, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of the alleged sale of land was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts. The assessee demonstrated, by presenting a purchase deed and referring to the AO's own report, that the transaction in question was a purchase of land and not a sale. The details in the AO's information and the purchase deed furnished by the assessee completely tallied, establishing that the assessee had purchased the property during the impugned year, not sold it. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 22,19,515 made on account of income earned by way of sale of land was held to be incorrect and was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address the grounds related to jurisdiction, natural justice, or interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, as the primary issue of the factual incorrectness of the addition was decisive.

The Tribunal held that for the purposes of computing book profits for calculating remuneration allowable to partners under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the profits as reflected in the profit and loss account of the partnership firm (commercial profits) are to be considered, not the business profits computed as per the Act. The Tribunal noted that it is a judicially settled proposition that book profits are derived from the net profit shown in the P&L account. The interest earned on FDRs and KVPs, having been included in the profit and loss account of the partnership firm, should not be excluded for determining the book profits on which remuneration is computed. The Tribunal found that the Ld. DR was unable to present any contrary judicial decision. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below, which excluded the interest income, were held to be not in accordance with law. The disallowance of Rs. 1,93,183/- made by the authorities below as a consequence of excluding the interest income from book profits was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent order passed under Section 147, as it was not addressed in the final decision.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and perused the materials on record, including the copy of the registration application in Form No. 6 dated 12.10.2026 issued by the RPT authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of hearing and then grant registration as per the provisions of law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee should cooperate by filing all required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E) for passing the order of registration under sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the materials on record, including the copy of the registration application in Form No. 6 dated 30.06.2026 issued by the RPT authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass an order for registration under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act, provided the assessee cooperates by filing the required documents and details. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the original denial but remanded the case for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that where subsequent documentation rectifies the deficiencies leading to denial of registration, and the revenue has no objection, the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, including the copy of the registration application in Form No.6 dated 20.03.2026 issued by the RPT authority, found it fit in the interest of justice to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The principle derived is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to rectify deficiencies, especially when a crucial registration has been obtained, should be afforded. The assessee was also advised to cooperate by filing required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E) for passing the order of registration. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee while rejecting its application for registration under Section 12A of the Act. Considering that an application for registration under the RPT Act was pending, the Tribunal found it in the interest of justice to have the assessee's application reconsidered by the CIT(E) after giving due opportunity of hearing. The Ld. DR also agreed to this course of action. Consequently, the appeal concerning the Section 12A registration (ITA No. 1263/JPR/2026) was allowed for statistical purposes, with the application being restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Regarding the Section 80G approval (ITA No. 1262/JPR/2026), which was denied due to the lack of 12A registration, this issue was also restored back to the CIT(E) to be reconsidered along with the Section 12A application. The ratio decidendi is that an application for registration under Section 12A should be reconsidered if the assessee demonstrates a pending application for registration under a relevant state act and was not afforded adequate hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee while rejecting its applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G. Considering that an application for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, was pending before the competent authority, and the assessee had submitted Form No. 6 in support, the Tribunal found it in the interest of justice to reconsider the matter. The Tribunal restored both applications back to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and reconsider the applications afresh. The principle established is that statutory authorities must provide adequate opportunities for hearing before passing adverse orders, especially when relevant applications are pending before other authorities. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee while rejecting its applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G. Considering that an application for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, was pending before the competent authority, and the assessee had submitted Form No. 6 in support, the Tribunal found it in the interest of justice to reconsider the matter. The Tribunal restored both applications back to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and reconsider the applications afresh. The principle established is that statutory authorities must provide adequate opportunities for hearing before passing adverse orders, especially when relevant applications are pending before other authorities. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the Special Bench decision in Araadhya Jain Trust Vs. ITO. The Special Bench had categorically held that for private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable to tax at MMR, the surcharge is to be levied as per the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax'. The Tribunal directed the CPC/AO to levy the surcharge as per the prescribed slab rates in the Finance Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in terms of this direction. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that a huge addition of Rs. 2,17,83,308/- was made in the assessee's hands without the assessee being heard at all. The assessee's returned income was Rs. 4,42,620/-, and the addition was many times this amount. The assessee's counsel undertook to participate in the proceedings if given a chance, and the Ld. DR agreed that the addition was made without hearing the assessee. Considering these facts, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO to frame the assessment afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were not made on merits, as the case was remanded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee while rejecting its application for registration under Section 12A of the Act. Considering that an application for registration under the RPT Act was pending, the Tribunal found it in the interest of justice to have the assessee's application reconsidered by the CIT(E) after giving due opportunity of hearing. The Ld. DR also agreed to this course of action. Consequently, the appeal concerning the Section 12A registration (ITA No. 1263/JPR/2026) was allowed for statistical purposes, with the application being restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Regarding the Section 80G approval (ITA No. 1262/JPR/2026), which was denied due to the lack of 12A registration, this issue was also restored back to the CIT(E) to be reconsidered along with the Section 12A application. The ratio decidendi is that an application for registration under Section 12A should be reconsidered if the assessee demonstrates a pending application for registration under a relevant state act and was not afforded adequate hearing.

The Tribunal noted that a substantial addition of Rs. 2,17,83,308/- was made to the assessee's income without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee's counsel stated that a huge addition was made without the assessee being heard and undertook to participate in the proceedings if given a chance, requesting the matter be restored to the AO for fresh consideration. The Revenue's counsel, while opposing the assessee's contention, agreed that the addition was made without hearing the assessee. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found it fit in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to frame the assessment afresh after giving the assessee due opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the application dated 13.10.2026 moved by the Learned Authorized Representative for the appellants. In view of this application, the present appeals (ITA Nos. 1495 & 1496/JPR/2026) were dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not delve into the substantive grounds of appeal or the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.

The Tribunal considered the application dated 13.10.2026 moved by the Learned Authorized Representative for the appellants. In view of this application, the present appeals (ITA Nos. 1495 & 1496/JPR/2026) were dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not delve into the substantive grounds of appeal or the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained the cash deposits. Regarding the Rs. 3,00,000 claimed as gifts, the Tribunal found that the father-in-law, a retired government employee drawing pension, could plausibly have Rs. 1,50,000 as savings. For the gift from the mother, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided bills for the sale of jewellery, and the AO's denial was based on a hasty verification process, including an incorrect identification of a stamp vendor and failure to verify with the seller. The Tribunal also addressed the total cash deposit of Rs. 6,19,500, noting that the bank statements showed cash withdrawals of Rs. 7,01,000 against these deposits. The Tribunal considered this sufficient explanation for day-to-day expenses or investments. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 6,19,500 and the consequential addition of Rs. 3,276 on account of interest were ordered to be deleted. The reassessment proceedings were implicitly upheld as the Tribunal proceeded to decide on merits, but the additions made were deleted. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's written application seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee had stated that the subsequent grant of registration and approval by the CIT(E) rendered the pending appeals infructuous. The Ld. DR for the Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal. Therefore, following the assessee's request and the Revenue's acquiescence, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original orders rejecting the applications, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal that has become infructuous due to subsequent events can be withdrawn by the appellant with the consent of the respondent, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a written application requesting to withdraw the appeal. The revenue's representative did not object to this request. In light of the assessee's clear intention to withdraw the appeal and the absence of any objection from the revenue, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,82,63,955/-. Regarding grounds 1 and 2, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had examined the case records and submissions, noting that the alleged lenders were family members who regularly filed income tax returns. The CIT(A) observed that the transactions were settlements of money advanced by the assessee to these parties, and the amounts were transferred through banking channels. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no material to doubt the creditworthiness of these parties, and the AO had not brought any contrary evidence on record. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not established cash deposits, round-tripping, or doubtful credit entries in third-party accounts. For grounds 3 and 4 concerning the addition of Rs. 3,39,00,058/-, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had meticulously examined the issue, relying on a certificate from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. This certificate confirmed that the total invoice value for imports and the assessable value, along with taxes paid, tallied with the assessee's recorded purchases. The Tribunal concluded that the CBIC data contained misreported assessable values, and the assessee's books were in consonance with the correct invoice values and taxes paid. Therefore, the Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld its findings.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's written application seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee had stated that the subsequent grant of registration and approval by the CIT(E) rendered the pending appeals infructuous. The Ld. DR for the Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal. Therefore, following the assessee's request and the Revenue's acquiescence, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original orders rejecting the applications, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal that has become infructuous due to subsequent events can be withdrawn by the appellant with the consent of the respondent, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee, to do substantial justice and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, one more opportunity should be granted. The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the credit card transactions were related to his partnership business and that he faced difficulties in furnishing complete documentation due to family problems. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the entire details to be produced by the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions but granted a procedural relief.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal, finding that the war-like situation in Dubai and Oman involving Israel, USA, and Iran constituted a "sufficient cause" for the delay, aligning with the liberal interpretation of limitation provisions for advancing substantial justice as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a non-resident Indian, was held up in Dubai and Oman due to the conflict. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to make a fresh assessment, examine all evidence relied upon by the assessee, and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to ensure complete justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had provided an explanation for the delay in filing the appeal through a notarized affidavit, it was deemed fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to consider the notarized affidavit. Subsequently, the CIT(A) is to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee should cooperate by filing all required documents before the CIT(A) for passing an order on merits. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed against ex-parte appellate orders passed by the CIT(A). The judgment excerpt provided is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on the issues raised. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings, the reasoning that led to them, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not ascertainable from the provided text. No specific issue was expressly left undecided as the judgment is incomplete.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed against ex-parte appellate orders passed by the CIT(A). The judgment excerpt provided is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on the issues raised. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings, the reasoning that led to them, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not ascertainable from the provided text. No specific issue was expressly left undecided as the judgment is incomplete.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a "sufficient cause." The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC)) for a liberal interpretation of provisions for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of 430 and 607 days in ITA Nos. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 (AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20) was condoned, and these appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after the decision of the quantum appeals, with an adequate opportunity of being heard. For ITA Nos. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18), the Tribunal found that the assessee had made due compliance on 06.05.2023 after an adjournment request was declined. Therefore, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were not liable to be initiated for subsequent defaults. Citing a coordinate bench decision in Shri Puneet Narang vs. ITO, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to the first default of Rs. 10,000/- each and ordered the deletion of the rest of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a "sufficient cause." The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC)) for a liberal interpretation of provisions for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of 430 and 607 days in ITA Nos. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 (AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20) was condoned, and these appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after the decision of the quantum appeals, with an adequate opportunity of being heard. For ITA Nos. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18), the Tribunal found that the assessee had made due compliance on 06.05.2023 after an adjournment request was declined. Therefore, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were not liable to be initiated for subsequent defaults. Citing a coordinate bench decision in Shri Puneet Narang vs. ITO, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to the first default of Rs. 10,000/- each and ordered the deletion of the rest of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a "sufficient cause." The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC)) for a liberal interpretation of provisions for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of 430 and 607 days in ITA Nos. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 (AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20) was condoned, and these appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after the decision of the quantum appeals, with an adequate opportunity of being heard. For ITA Nos. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18), the Tribunal found that the assessee had made due compliance on 06.05.2023 after an adjournment request was declined. Therefore, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were not liable to be initiated for subsequent defaults. Citing a coordinate bench decision in Shri Puneet Narang vs. ITO, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to the first default of Rs. 10,000/- each and ordered the deletion of the rest of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was to be allowed for statistical purposes. Considering the submissions of the assessee and the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify all the relevant documents filed by the assessee, and then pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee should cooperate by filing all the required documents before the Ld. CIT(A) for passing an order on the merits of the case. The specific grounds raised by the assessee were not decided on merits by the ITAT, but the procedural defect of the ex-parte dismissal was rectified.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a "sufficient cause." The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC)) for a liberal interpretation of provisions for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of 430 and 607 days in ITA Nos. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 (AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20) was condoned, and these appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after the decision of the quantum appeals, with an adequate opportunity of being heard. For ITA Nos. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18), the Tribunal found that the assessee had made due compliance on 06.05.2023 after an adjournment request was declined. Therefore, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were not liable to be initiated for subsequent defaults. Citing a coordinate bench decision in Shri Puneet Narang vs. ITO, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to the first default of Rs. 10,000/- each and ordered the deletion of the rest of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application was filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B. The Tribunal noted that the word 'excluded' in this section means 'actually allowed by the Department', not merely claimed. Since the CPC disallowed the claim for AY 2024-25 and the assessee paid the full tax, no income was excluded. The Tribunal considered the possibility that the application should have been filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) but stated that mentioning a wrong clause in Form 10AB is a procedural irregularity and a curable defect. The Tribunal cited numerous ITAT decisions holding that the CIT(E) should not reject an application solely on the ground of a wrong clause but should treat it under the appropriate clause and decide on merits. The Tribunal found that Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) deals with trusts seeking re-registration under the old law, while sub-clause (vi)-Item B is a residuary provision for cases where activities have commenced but exemption has never been availed. The Tribunal concluded that the twin conditions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B were satisfied. The CIT(E) had not doubted the charitable objects or activities. Therefore, the rejection on a technical ground was unsustainable. As 12AB registration is a pre-condition for 80G approval, the rejection of 80G was also consequential. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to treat Form 10AB as maintainable under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B and pass orders granting registration under section 12AB and 80G.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The primary reason for this decision was the assessee's undertaking to apply for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and the submission of a copy of this application dated 08.10.2026. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to allow them to file all necessary details before the CIT(E) for grant of registration under section 12AB and 80G(5). The revenue did not object to this course of action, provided the assessee furnished all relevant materials. In the interest of justice, the ITAT directed that the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to pass orders in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). The primary reason for this decision was the assessee's undertaking to apply for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and the submission of a copy of this application dated 08.10.2026. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to allow them to file all necessary details before the CIT(E) for grant of registration under section 12AB and 80G(5). The revenue did not object to this course of action, provided the assessee furnished all relevant materials. In the interest of justice, the ITAT directed that the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to pass orders in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in not appearing before the AO and providing complete details, she was not afforded an adequate opportunity to prove her case, particularly as her application for additional evidence under Rule 46A was dismissed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the documents sought to be produced by the assessee, including the sale deed, bank account statements of her husband, and his income tax returns and audit reports, prima facie indicated that the entire sale consideration was paid by her husband. In the interest of natural justice and to provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and remand the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the case afresh after appreciating all the evidence, including the additional evidence the assessee intends to produce, and by providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee has assured that she will produce all evidence before the AO, failing which no further opportunity will be granted. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A)'s order mentioned five notices issued to the assessee, the mode of issuance (digital or physical) and proof of service were not recorded. The assessee's representative claimed no notices were received and requested another opportunity. The Tribunal, considering that substantial justice requires another opportunity, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowances under Sections 10(10), 10(10AA), and 80C, nor the validity of the Section 148 notice or the non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order, as these were to be adjudicated in the fresh appeal proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to enable it to file all necessary details and evidence. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering these submissions. The specific grounds for denial of registration under section 12AB and 80G were not decided on merits, as the matter was remanded. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be granted to an assessee to rectify procedural deficiencies or provide missing documentation, especially when the assessee demonstrates willingness to comply.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the registration application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E) to enable it to file all necessary details and evidence. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering these submissions. The specific grounds for denial of registration under section 12AB and 80G were not decided on merits, as the matter was remanded. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be granted to an assessee to rectify procedural deficiencies or provide missing documentation, especially when the assessee demonstrates willingness to comply.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of party-wise sales, purchases, commodity details, commission received, and other charges for his Adatiya business. The assessee also submitted complete sales/purchases of goods for commission sales, which were vouched, and no defects were pointed out by the AO or CIT(A). The books of account were not rejected. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's contention that the lower authorities did not give a VC hearing. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash withdrawal through his Adatiya and commission business with relevant bills, vouchers, and party details. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69C was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application was filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B. The Tribunal noted that the word 'excluded' in this section means 'actually allowed by the Department', not merely claimed. Since the CPC disallowed the claim for AY 2024-25 and the assessee paid the full tax, no income was excluded. The Tribunal considered the possibility that the application should have been filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) but stated that mentioning a wrong clause in Form 10AB is a procedural irregularity and a curable defect. The Tribunal cited numerous ITAT decisions holding that the CIT(E) should not reject an application solely on the ground of a wrong clause but should treat it under the appropriate clause and decide on merits. The Tribunal found that Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) deals with trusts seeking re-registration under the old law, while sub-clause (vi)-Item B is a residuary provision for cases where activities have commenced but exemption has never been availed. The Tribunal concluded that the twin conditions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B were satisfied. The CIT(E) had not doubted the charitable objects or activities. Therefore, the rejection on a technical ground was unsustainable. As 12AB registration is a pre-condition for 80G approval, the rejection of 80G was also consequential. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to treat Form 10AB as maintainable under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B and pass orders granting registration under section 12AB and 80G.

The Tribunal held that the application seeking approval under Section 80G of the Act should be restored back to the CIT(Exemption) to be examined afresh. This decision was based on the admitted fact that the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A was also rejected for identical reasons and had been restored by the ITAT for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the Section 80G application be examined along with the Section 12A application, following the directions given by the ITAT in the assessee's appeal in ITA No.934/JPR/2026. The reasoning was that since the ITAT had already directed a fresh examination of the Section 12A application due to the assessee rectifying the deficiencies, a similar approach was warranted for the Section 80G application. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.