ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that while the denial of exemption under Section 11 due to lack of 12AA registration was correct, the tax should not be computed at MMR. Instead, it should be computed under Section 164(2) of the Act, applicable to AOP/Individual, with initial exemptions available.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 was bad-in-law. This was based on the principle that when an appeal is pending before the CIT(A) on the same issue, the revisionary authority cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 263, as per various judicial precedents, including the Madras High Court's decision in Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO. The assessment order was found to be passed after due process and consideration of facts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. Citing relevant sections of the IT Act and judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits after applying their mind to all issues, and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution.

The Departmental Representative had no objection to the request of the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that relief had already been secured via a rectification order. The Ld. DR confirmed having no objection to this withdrawal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on a prior coordinate bench decision (ITO, TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer) and CBDT Circular No. 502, concluding that payments to VFPMCs are not contract payments and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal also emphasized the principle of judicial discipline, stating that decisions of higher appellate authorities are binding on subordinate authorities.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case. The addition was based on a misinterpretation of the disputed amount as remission of liability instead of debit balances of debtors.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and noted that the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that payments to VFPMCs are not contract payments under Section 194C. It relied on a previous ITAT Jaipur Bench decision and CBDT Circular No. 502, which clarified that such payments, being reimbursements for self-help groups working under forest conservation policies (Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953), are not subject to TDS. The Tribunal also emphasized the binding nature of decisions by higher appellate authorities on subordinate authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of account were audited and accepted by the VAT authority. The source of cash deposits was found to be out of cash sales, which were duly recorded, supported by bills and vouchers, and backed by sufficient stock. The Tribunal held that the addition by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was based on presumptions and surmises, lacking proper evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if they failed to avail the benefits of the DTVSVS Scheme, 2024, thus ensuring no prejudice to either party.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's election to settle under the DTVSVS 2024 and the absence of objection from the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the explicit provision that the assessee retains the liberty to revive the appeal should they fail to obtain the benefit of the DTVSVS scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the Senior DR did not object to the withdrawal application. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to avail the benefits of the scheme due to technicalities, they are at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to revive the appeal within the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal by filing a Misc. Application under section 254(2) of the Act if they fail to avail the scheme's benefit due to technicalities.

The Tribunal condoned the net delay of 280 days, considering the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. The appeals were admitted and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, condoned the net delay of 280 days for AY 2012-13 (and lesser for other years after accounting for COVID-19 period extensions), and restored all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals, noting the complexities faced by the official liquidator and the extended limitation period due to COVID-19. It condoned the net delay of 280 days for Assessment Year 2012-13 and restored all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing them for statistical purposes.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that there was sufficient cause for the delay, considering the unique circumstances of the liquidator's appointment, the non-communication of assessment orders to the proper authority, and the Supreme Court's extensions during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a net delay of 280 days for AY 2012-13. The ITAT condoned the delay, admitted all appeals, and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the unique circumstances faced by the official liquidator. After accounting for the Supreme Court's COVID-19 related extensions, the net delay for the lead assessment year was determined to be 280 days. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, applying the same findings mutatis mutandis to all other connected appeals.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' applications for withdrawal of the appeals. Since the Ld. CIT DR had no objection to the withdrawal request, the Tribunal granted the request and dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges faced by the Official Liquidator in filing the appeals within the stipulated timeframes due to various legal and administrative impediments, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the sufficient cause for the delay, the Tribunal decided to condone the net delay of 280 days for the assessment year 2012-13.

The learned Counsel of the assessee requested to withdraw the appeals. The Ld. CIT DR had no objection to the request of the AR. Accordingly, all three appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals and that the CIT DR had no objection. Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), including the complexities surrounding the official liquidator's appointment and communication issues. It condoned the delay (280 days for AY 2012-13, less for subsequent years) and restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, noting factual inaccuracies in the CIT(A)'s service observations and the genuine difficulties faced by the official liquidator. It condoned the net delay of 280 days, admitted the appeals, and restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The findings for AY 2012-13 were directed to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application and found no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal, noting the lack of supporting evidence and repeated non-compliance. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and dismissed as unadmitted. The Tribunal, however, granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal upon filing a bona fide reason supported by a duly certified notarized affidavit.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 153A were without jurisdiction and bad in law, as no incriminating material was found during the search operation pertaining to the completed assessment for AY 2014-15. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed/unabated assessments in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search.