ITAT Nagpur Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It held that exemption under Section 54F should not be restricted for joint ownership with a spouse, citing beneficial construction principles. For construction expenses, the Tribunal ruled that Section 54/54F benefits cannot be denied solely due to the property being in the husband's name, provided the assessee incurred the expenditure. The Ld. AO was directed to verify the investments and grant full relief.

The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on assumptions and presumptions, ignoring the extensive evidence submitted by the assessee, including details of agricultural income/expenditure, land records, sale receipts, and reports from the Taluka Agriculture Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that agricultural produce quantity is dependent on various factors and cannot be determined by a 'straight jacket formula', thus deleting the addition.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the case to the AO for fresh assessment concerning the additions of Rs. 30,00,000 and Rs. 7,65,000, emphasizing the need for thorough verification and proper opportunity for the Assessee. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,35,000, finding it unsustainable as it pertained to A.Y. 2014-15 and not the assessment year under consideration. The CIT(A)'s order was modified to this extent.

Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) granted insufficient time for compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the initial notice under Section 148A(b), the subsequent notice under Section 148, and the resultant assessment order.

The ITAT, relying on a jurisdictional High Court judgment, held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution as it is required to apply its mind to all issues under Section 251. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal, drawing upon precedents from coordinate benches and jurisdictional High Courts, held that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied on mere technicalities like late filing of Form 10B or incorrect claim clause, especially when the assessee has otherwise complied with procedural requirements and filed the form. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the claim on merits, treating Form 10B as valid.

The Tribunal condoned the 23-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. Relying on High Court precedent, it held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording the Assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the 40-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be plausible and unintentional. It upheld the Ld. Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment orders and remand the cases for de novo adjudication, instructing the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity to present all legal and factual grounds. All appeals were consequently allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the 40-day delay in filing the appeals, finding it plausible and unintentional. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment orders and remand the cases to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the Assessee sufficient opportunities to present evidence and raise all legal and factual grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case for de-novo adjudication by the AO, directing the AO to provide sufficient opportunities to the Assessee to present evidence and raise all legal and factual grounds. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found the Ld. Commissioner's order to remand the case for de novo adjudication to be proper, as it adequately provided the assessee with opportunities to present evidence. The Tribunal upheld the remand order and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, granting liberty for recall if non-appearance is substantiated.

Given the lack of relevant documents and the need for proper adjudication, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Assessee is directed to comply with notices and submit all necessary documents, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 40-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it plausible, reasonable, sufficient, and unintentional. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the AO to provide the assessee with reasonable opportunities to raise all legal grounds and present evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for an assessment framed under Section 143(3), including those initiated under Section 147/148. The complete absence of this notice cannot be cured by Section 292BB. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal remanded the case to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. It directed the Ld. Commissioner to consider the documents submitted by the assessee to the Tribunal and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, emphasizing the importance of these documents for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the sale deed reflected the initial payments made in 2014. Applying the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii), which allows considering the stamp duty value on the agreement date if it differs from the registration date, the Tribunal found the addition made by the AO was not applicable. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 2,74,500/- was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeal. Following precedents, it held that the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied merely due to the belated filing of Form 10B, as it is a procedural rather than a mandatory requirement. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the Assessee's claim on merits, considering the Form 10B filed as valid.

The Tribunal condoned the 191-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the Assessee's reasons genuine and *bonafide*. It held that the Ld. Commissioner erred by not issuing notice or providing an opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate the delay in filing the first appeal. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on the limitation issue, with directions to the Assessee to file an application and affidavit for delay condonation, and if condoned, to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the Assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the lender, including bank statements and repayment details. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee discharged its prima-facie onus, and the department failed to prove otherwise, thus deleting the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the deduction of Rs. 9,02,984/- for interest income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), holding that the funds invested were operational/liquid funds, not surplus, and the income was from banking business. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 14,831/- for 'donation' due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessee claimed to have submitted various documents that were not examined by the lower authorities. Considering these documents essential for proper adjudication, the Tribunal remanded the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons bona fide. Citing judicial precedent, it ruled that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without deciding on its merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the Assessee a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable because the assessee had duly accounted for the cash deposits and the AO had neither rejected the assessee's books of accounts nor considered the cash on hand available in old denominations. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition under consideration.

The ITAT, after considering the facts and documents, found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the investment of Rs. 17.00 Lac, primarily from the sale of his wife's land and family savings. Consequently, the tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus under Section 69 of the Act, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned a 252-day delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing comprehensive documentation and proof of payment through banking channels, thereby establishing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 15 Lac, relying on the principle laid down in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the 666-day delay, accepting the Assessee's reasons as genuine. All appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with directions to provide the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal to the High Court Legal Service Authority. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT condoned the 666-day delay, finding the Assessee's reasons regarding operating in a remote tribal area with limited infrastructure and issues with email notices to be genuine and unintentional. The tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision, directing that the Assessee be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the 666-day delay, acknowledging the Assessee's genuine hardship, subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000 per appeal. It remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering the challenges faced in responding to notices. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the failure to provide a Video Conferencing facility for a personal hearing, despite specific requests, constituted a violation of natural justice and CBDT guidelines, citing a relevant High Court judgment. It held that such an omission renders the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 87-day delay in filing the appeal. It deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), finding that Section 80A(5) was not attracted as no return was filed and payments were below the TDS threshold. The issue of disallowance of provision for bad debts was remanded back to the AO for a clear finding.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of adjudicating on merits after dismissing for delay to be 'deplorable' as it denied the assessee an effective opportunity. Given the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided.

The CIT(A) quashed the rectification order, holding that changing the assessee's status from co-operative society to AOP was a debatable issue and not a mistake apparent from record under Section 154. The CIT(A) also noted that the rectification order was passed manually without a Document Identification Number (DIN), making it invalid as per CBDT circulars. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The ITAT observed that the assessment proceedings underlying the penalty had previously been set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the tribunal also restored the penalty proceedings to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision, to be made only after the assessment appeal is finalized. A cost of ₹ 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance and procedural delays.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey, having no independent identity and being part of the entire stock, should be treated as undeclared business income and not as undisclosed investment under Section 69B. Consequently, the provisions of Section 115BBE are not applicable, and the amount of ₹ 69,37,859 is to be considered as business income, forming part of the book profit for calculating partners' remuneration under Section 40(b).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry and formed a plausible view regarding the protective addition, making the original assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Citing Supreme Court and other judgments, the Tribunal ruled that a revision under Section 263 is not permissible merely because the PCIT holds a different view after the AO has applied their mind. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the PCIT's show cause notice and final order regarding the quantum of alleged under-assessment, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's Section 263 order and restored the original assessment order.

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO for verification of Form 10-IC was a limited direction and not an order setting aside the assessment. Grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed as the benefit had already been granted via rectification proceedings. Ground 3, challenging the Section 154 rectification order, was dismissed as premature, not having been an issue before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a detailed and thorough inquiry, examining financial statements and making speaking observations to arrive at a legally permissible view. It noted that the PCIT had not conducted even a minimal inquiry to dislodge the cogent findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was unsustainable and quashed it.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without passing a speaking order under Section 260(6) of the Act. Consequently, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The tribunal condoned the delay considering the reasons provided were bonafide and unintentional. The tribunal observed that notices were issued during the Covid-19 period, and a subsequent notice could not be complied with due to medical reasons and the death of the previous tax consultant. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The tribunal observed that the assessee had not specifically challenged the penalty order before the Ld. Commissioner, leading to a potential oversight. For substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The tribunal noted that while the assessee did not provide complete compliance, they did respond to notices. Considering the peculiar facts, the tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal, relying on the Kerala High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, held that a belated return can be accepted and acted upon for claiming deductions like Section 80P, provided further assessment proceedings are pending. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction on its merits.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish relevant documents and substantiate its claim under Section 80P. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now filed various documents before it, which require examination by the AO. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh decision after considering these documents and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of miscommunication and the need for a proper adjudication. For substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an auto driver with limited education and no email, might not have received the notices sent by the Ld. Commissioner, especially since they preferred physical notices. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant gap in the appeal processing time.