ITAT Nagpur Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal accepted the contention that the amount was already shown by the assessee. However, if an addition was to be sustained, it should be at a profit rate of 8%, considering previous and subsequent profit averages. The Tribunal inclined to apply a net profit rate of 8% over the gross profit rate.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claimed the same deduction was allowed in previous years without factual differences. While acknowledging the issue might be debatable, the Tribunal held that tax cannot be levied without authority of law. Thus, the deduction under section 80P should be allowed, subject to verification.

The Tribunal noted the delay and the assessee's explanation. While the Revenue refuted the claim, the Tribunal considered the affidavit's contents and found the reasons to be reasonable and bonafide. The delay was condoned, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-.

The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was unsustainable and not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved. It was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that two additions were made on a single issue, which the Amicus Curiae argued was improper. The Tribunal also observed that the lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to a delay without adjudicating on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner failed to pass an order on merits. For a just and proper decision, the case is remanded to the AO, with the condition of the assessee depositing Rs. 3,300/-.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, acknowledging the importance of the documents submitted by the Assessee for proper adjudication. The Court decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, considering the assessee's NRI status and lack of awareness of filing procedures as plausible reasons. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated the flat's purchase price was adjusted from the sale of agricultural land.

The tribunal observed that the assessee had filed submissions and documents, but the Ld. Commissioner had dismissed the appeal without analyzing them. This violation of the principles of natural justice led the tribunal to set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering it genuine and unintentional. For ITA No.266/Nag/2025, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, providing one last opportunity to the assessee. For the other two appeals (ITA Nos. 267 & 268/Nag/2025), the Tribunal also decided to remand them for adjudication of other grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons genuine and unintentional. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to file submissions before the Ld. Commissioner and decided to remand the case for a fresh decision, providing one last opportunity. For the other appeals, it was observed that the Commissioner failed to decide various grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the Assessee's explanation genuine and unintentional. For the lead case (ITA No.266/Nag/2025), the Tribunal found that the Assessee failed to file submissions before the Commissioner and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, remanded the case for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act before passing the assessment order. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, it was held that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for making an assessment under section 143(3), and its absence vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file a proper affidavit to support the condonation of delay. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case for condonation of delay by producing relevant documents. The case was remanded to the Commissioner.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claims to have filed documents before the Ld. Commissioner, which were not examined. Considering the facts and circumstances, and to ensure proper decision and substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the demise of the assessee's accountant and the circumstances presented. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal found that the issues regarding deductions under sections 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) are squarely covered in favor of the Assessee by previous Tribunal and High Court judgments, including the principle that 'if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted'. It held that interest income earned from co-operative banks and nationalized banks (from operational funds) is eligible for deduction. The appeal was allowed, and the AO was directed to verify the facts and amounts and accordingly allow the deductions.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of share application money and long-term capital gain were subject to scrutiny during the original assessment proceedings, and therefore, reopening based on a change of opinion is not sustainable. However, the addition sustained on account of disallowance under section 14A was upheld as per law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. Due to the peculiar facts and circumstances, and to ensure proper adjudication, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasons for the delay were bonafide and unintentional. While condoning the delay, a condition was imposed for the deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to non-compliance, which was partly due to communication issues regarding email addresses.

The Tribunal noted that the difference between the FMV and the sale consideration was less than 5% of the statutory leverage. Therefore, the addition sustained by the AO was considered excessive.

The assessee's appeal was considered liable to be dismissed as withdrawn due to the filing of the VSV Scheme application. However, liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order if the dispute settlement through VSV Scheme was not finalized.

Considering the facts and circumstances, and that the assessee had initiated an efficacious remedy, the case was remanded to the JAO for appropriate action on the rectification application. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted that the order was not available online earlier but is now available. The Tribunal allowed the assessee one more opportunity to present the order.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner had not considered the assessee's additional evidence and relied solely on the remand report. It further found that the AO's addition was made without corroborative evidence, rendering it unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the 57-day delay in filing the appeal, deeming the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and unintentional. Upon examining the merits, the Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 36,13,000/- was made by the AO based on a property purchase transaction, while the reasons for reopening were primarily based on a property sale transaction. The Tribunal relied on a High Court judgment stating that if the income forming the basis of the reason to believe under Section 147 has not been assessed or reassessed, the AO cannot independently assess other income that comes to notice subsequently without a fresh notice.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Ld. Commissioner was directed to take into consideration the complete order/intimation passed by the CPC, and the assessee was instructed to provide the complete set of the said order.

The Tribunal found that the issue raised before the Ld. Commissioner needed to be adjudicated properly, especially due to the absence of necessary documentary evidence. Therefore, for a just and proper decision, the case was remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

Following a Special Bench ITAT ruling, the Tribunal held that for Private Discretionary Trusts taxable at the maximum marginal rate, surcharge must be computed as per the slab rates in the Finance Act, not at a flat 37%. Consequently, the 37% surcharge was deleted, and the AO was directed to apply surcharge as per Paragraph A, Part 1, First Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings under section 147 of the Act, initiated by a notice dated 31/03/2021 and consequent assessment order dated 25/03/2022, were liable to be quashed as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's counsel submitted that the order was not initially available online. Considering this, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present the order. The appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for verification purposes only, without conducting a roving enquiry.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The tribunal held that the addition of ₹9,28,735/- for undisclosed investment in shares was unsustainable, as no prima-facie case was established and the AO relied on information without substantive material. Similarly, the addition of ₹2,48,000/- for unaccounted money under Section 69A was deemed unsustainable given the assessee's plausible pension income. The addition of ₹46,613/- for interest income was also found unsustainable as the assessee's overall income was below the taxable limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business and regularly purchases plots for stock-in-trade. Treating the interest expenses on borrowed funds for these plots as unsustainable under Section 36(1)(iii) was incorrect, as they were directly related to the business of stock-in-trade.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided proof of registration under Section 12AA dated 28/06/2017, which was still in existence and not cancelled. Considering the facts, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that no surcharge would be leviable as the assessee's total income did not exceed ₹50,00,000/-. Consequently, the surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer at 37% was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Act, which excludes cooperative banks from deduction, applies only when the assessee itself is a cooperative bank. In this case, the assessee is a cooperative society investing in cooperative banks, and the interest income earned is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the principle of adopting a construction favoring the assessee when interpretations of taxing provisions differ.

The tribunal held that, as per the first schedule to the Finance Act, no surcharge is leviable when the total income does not exceed ₹ 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the 37% surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer, finding it to be unwarranted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's general non-substantiation but acknowledged partial compliance before the Assessing Officer. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the Ld. Commissioner's order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to depositing ₹5,500/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit of ₹1,100, considering the circumstances to be bonafide, genuine, and unintentional. However, on merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to substantiate their submissions with documentary evidence, leading to an addition by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had taken steps to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not settled.

The Tribunal held that the additions for undisclosed investment in shares (₹9,28,735) were unsustainable as there was no substantive material against the assessee. The additions for unaccounted money (₹2,48,000) and interest income (₹46,613) were also found unsustainable, considering the assessee's pension income and income being below the taxable limit, respectively. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal based on the available material and observed that the assessee failed to present submissions or documents to counter the Assessing Officer's contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions.

The Tribunal noted that all three appeals were interconnected and disposed of them by a composite order, treating ITA No. 285/NAG/2024 as the lead case. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No.1 and deposited the requisite amount to settle the dispute, and the Revenue had issued Form No.2. Consequently, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the parties to seek recalling of the order if the dispute was not finally settled.