ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. The provisions of the DTAA override the Income Tax Act, and FTC cannot be denied solely for the delay in filing Form 67.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid. For AY 2015-16, the notice was considered time-barred as it was uploaded on April 1, 2021, despite being digitally signed on March 31, 2021. For AY 2013-14, the notice was issued manually without a Document Identification Number (DIN), making it invalid as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid. For AY 2015-16, the notice was deemed issued on April 1, 2021, making it time-barred, and for AY 2013-14, a manual notice without a Document Identification Number (DIN) was invalid as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law and quashed the reassessment proceedings. This decision followed a previous ruling on identical grounds for the assessee's wife.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No. 1 under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the matter was likely to be resolved. It granted liberty to the assessee to file an application for revival of the appeal if the desired outcome under the scheme does not materialize, and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that all three cases required intense fact-finding to assess the correct income of the assessee. It noted that due to non-compliance before the AO, the assessee had suffered various additions. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside all three impugned orders. The matters were remanded to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal expected the assessee to be alert and vigilant regarding notices issued by the AO. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the validity of the AO's orders, as the primary decision was to remand the cases for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that where substantial justice requires further fact-finding and the assessee demonstrates a genuine inability to present their case fully before the lower authorities, a remand to the AO is appropriate, even if the assessee was at fault for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adequately examine the assessee's claim regarding the dissolution of the lending entity and failed to grant a proper opportunity to furnish supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all necessary evidence and the Ld. CIT(A) to verify the loan transactions afresh.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had meticulously analyzed the bank statements and found a pattern of 'round tripping' of funds among group companies. The premium on shares was arbitrarily fixed without any financial rationale, and the investors lacked business operations to justify such investments.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, issued on 31.07.2022, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the old regime and the benefit of TOLA was not applicable. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order cryptic and non-speaking, noting that the submitted details and evidence were not adequately considered. Therefore, the tribunal set aside both impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit necessary details and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) contained a cryptic finding regarding the alleged inadequacy of details submitted by the assessee, particularly concerning the source of cash donations. The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) must adjudicate through a speaking order and must consider all details and evidence filed by the assessee. To this extent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in both appeals. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to file necessary details. The assessee was advised to file details as and when requested by the Ld. CIT(E). The Tribunal did not decide the maintainability or merits of the applications themselves but directed a proper adjudication.

The Tribunal found that all three cases required intense fact-finding to assess the correct income of the assessee. It noted that due to non-compliance before the AO, the assessee had suffered various additions. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside all three impugned orders. The matters were remanded to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal expected the assessee to be alert and vigilant regarding notices issued by the AO. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the validity of the AO's orders, as the primary decision was to remand the cases for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that where substantial justice requires further fact-finding and the assessee demonstrates a genuine inability to present their case fully before the lower authorities, a remand to the AO is appropriate, even if the assessee was at fault for non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's status as a retired ONGC employee and the verifiable nature of his retirement benefits. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant facts and determine the correct income.

The ITAT determined that in the interest of substantive justice, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they did not receive a proper notice of hearing from the Pr. CIT, thus lacking an opportunity to present their case. Considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the Pr. CIT's order and remitted the matter back for a fresh order under Section 263, ensuring the assessee is provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's affidavit asserting non-receipt of the service tax amount and its reflection as receivable in the balance sheet necessitated verification. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts, including examining relevant bills and payments, and to decide based on whether the service tax was actually received.

The Tribunal found that the mandatory prior intimation, as required by the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act, was not issued to the assessee before making the adjustments. Therefore, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was held to be bad in law and was consequently quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) had already been dropped by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). It ruled that once a conscious decision to drop proceedings is made by one AO, no other AO should levy the same penalty based on identical facts. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned penalty.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, issued on 31.07.2022, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the old regime and the benefit of TOLA was not applicable. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the bank account belonged to the individual proprietorship and the transactions were disclosed and explained by the proprietor, the addition could not be made in the hands of the dissolved partnership firm. The AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the order under section 154 was not signed, and therefore, it lacked legal validity. Consequently, the AO's order was quashed on this ground.

The Tribunal found that all three cases required intense fact-finding to assess the correct income of the assessee. It noted that due to non-compliance before the AO, the assessee had suffered various additions. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside all three impugned orders. The matters were remanded to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal expected the assessee to be alert and vigilant regarding notices issued by the AO. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the validity of the AO's orders, as the primary decision was to remand the cases for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that where substantial justice requires further fact-finding and the assessee demonstrates a genuine inability to present their case fully before the lower authorities, a remand to the AO is appropriate, even if the assessee was at fault for non-compliance.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A). The appeal was remitted back to the Addl/JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to pass an order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the original investment was made in FY 2009-10 and matured in FY 2015-16. Agreeing with the department's stance, the Tribunal held that only the interest accrued on the investment, and not the entire maturity amount, should be subject to taxation. The case was remitted to the AO for fresh verification with specific directions to tax only the accrued interest component.

The Tribunal found that pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification under Section 154) which was not disposed of by the AO constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. While restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee due to non-cooperation during appellate proceedings. The order of CIT(A) will stand confirmed if the cost is not paid.

The Tribunal found that pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification under Section 154) which was not disposed of by the AO constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an existing trust, should have applied under clause (i) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), not clause (iii) as a new trust. The error in mentioning the wrong clause was deemed curable.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A). Emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over procedural lapses, the Tribunal provided the assessee with another opportunity to present its case, also directing the assessee to cooperate with future proceedings.

The Tribunal found that pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification under Section 154) which was not disposed of by the AO constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity.

The tribunal, relying on High Court precedents, held that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) that grants less than seven days for response is invalid. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were quashed.

The tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the purchaser, as transactions were conducted through banking channels with supporting documentation. It noted the irrelevance of lorry receipts for saree sales and highlighted the AO's failure to adjust the turnover if sales were reclassified. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.

The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment request and restored the case to the AO for fresh readjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the representative of the loan provider to substantiate the claim, failing which the AO could draw an adverse inference. A cost of Rs. 25,000 was levied on the assessee for non-compliance, which, if unpaid within 60 days, would lead to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one final opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for substantial justice and fair play, considering the quantum of addition and its consequences. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim regarding the disclosure in AY 2016-17. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification to ascertain if the said amount was indeed declared in AY 2016-17, in which case no addition would be warranted for the impugned assessment year.

The Tribunal found that pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification under Section 154) which was not disposed of by the AO constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in conformity with the CBDT instructions and was therefore invalid. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the assessee as it is not a company registered under the Companies Act. The issue regarding Section 14A was decided based on previous orders in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, dismissing some grounds and allowing others. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed, but the additional ground regarding dividend distribution tax was remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the assessee as it is not a company registered under the Companies Act. The issue regarding Section 14A was decided based on previous orders in the assessee's own case.

The learned DR did not object to the withdrawal request. Considering the resolution of the underlying issue through rectification and the assessee's application, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to respond to notices at both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levels. However, considering the nature of the addition and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the 354-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons. It observed that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte, depriving the assessee of a proper opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the addition was made due to the non-production of evidence by the assessee before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Given the assessee's counsel's submission that they could produce reconciliation of bank entries and payments to Hermes, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This is to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and reconcile the entries.

The Tribunal condoned the 401-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition. It remitted the case back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, setting aside the previous order. The assessee was granted liberty to file all necessary documents before the CIT(E) for a proper re-evaluation.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders, rectification orders, and the order of the CIT(A) were passed against a dead person, making them void ab initio. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment, it was held that such proceedings and notices are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The Director of the assessee-Company applied to withdraw the appeals. As the ld. D.R. had no objection, the Tribunal granted permission and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.