ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained a consistent turnover ratio during demonetization and that the AO did not reject the books of account. There was no evidence that the cash deposited was unaccounted or in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all financial statements and documentation, including those for the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found that section 69A is not applicable when transactions are recorded in the books of account.

The Tribunal held that Madhav University, being a statutory body established by state legislation, is not required to be registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. It was also observed that the university's activities are primarily for advancing education, and any surplus generated was ploughed back into educational activities, aligning with the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found the grounds for denial by the CIT(E) unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for non-submission of documents to the lower authorities and that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated reasonable cause for non-submission of documents and was not granted sufficient opportunity during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to bring on record any material to establish price manipulation or rigging by the assessee. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that the transactions could not be regarded as bogus. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154 was unjustified as it went beyond the scope of rectification and amounted to a change of decision. The rectification order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that while section 80AC disallows deductions for late filing, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act permits disallowance of Chapter VI-A deductions if the return is furnished beyond the due date. However, this specific provision was introduced later and is not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench ruling, holding that the CPC was not empowered to make such an adjustment under section 143(1)(a) for the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the appeal without proper service of notice and without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Tin Box Company vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeals on merits after granting adequate opportunity and proper service of notice to the assessee. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, ensuring the assessee is granted an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) acted hastily and irrationally by rejecting the application as infructuous. The CIT ought to have adjudicated the application in light of the ITAT's set-aside order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a good case for approval under section 80G, having already been granted registration under section 12AA/12AB.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeals, involving common issues across multiple assessment years, could have been filed based on Instruction No. 03/2011. However, considering the latest CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which revised monetary limits for appeals, the present appeals were found to be covered under the low tax effect criteria.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas scheme 2024 to settle the disputed demand and had furnished necessary forms. The Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 has revised the monetary limits for filing appeals, increasing the threshold for ITAT appeals to ₹60,00,000. Given that the disputed demands in these cases are less than this revised limit, the appeals are now considered to be under the low tax effect category.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated reasonable cause for not submitting documents earlier. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) acted in a hurried and irrational manner by rejecting the application as infructuous. The CIT(E) should have adjudicated the application in light of the ITAT's set-aside order. The assessee has a good case for approval under section 80G, especially since it has existing registration under section 12AA/12AB of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated a reasonable cause for non-submission of documents and was not granted sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated reasonable cause for not submitting documents and was not granted sufficient opportunity during assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the surge in cash sales during October 2016, despite claims of it being due to the Diwali season. However, considering the assessee's background and the principles of natural justice, a final opportunity for substantiation was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the utilization of Rs. 3,00,000/- for stock purchase were substantiated by the cash flow statement and bank statement, directing deletion of this addition. For the remaining Rs. 1,00,000/-, the explanation of agricultural income and past savings lacked concrete documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found the flat 10% disallowance of ornament making charges excessive, restricting it to Rs.75,000/- as reasonable, considering it a routine business expenditure. Regarding the unexplained cash deposit, while acknowledging the assessee had a sufficient cash balance, the nondisclosure of one deposit and lack of satisfactory explanation led to an adverse inference, but the addition was reduced to Rs.50,000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a liberal approach for bonafide reasons and lack of mala fides. It was held that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity in the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the explanation was bona fide and the delay was not deliberate. The assessment and the first appellate order were passed ex parte due to the assessee's non-participation.