Loading ITAT cases…
604 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2026.
Showing 40 of 604 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed medical bills and an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which was primarily attributed to a fatal road accident involving the key person of the assessee AOP, necessitating medical treatment. Considering this as a reasonable cause, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. This condonation was subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by each assessee within 30 days. Regarding the merits, since the impugned demands arose from CPC orders and there was no adjudication by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the grounds raised on merits to the file of the JAO for de novo adjudication. The JAO was directed to examine the details of income earned from trucks under Section 44AE, for which the assessees would file necessary evidence. The JAO was also instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. This condonation was subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by each assessee within 30 days. Regarding the merits, since the impugned demands arose from CPC orders and there was no adjudication by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the grounds raised on merits to the file of the JAO for de novo adjudication. The JAO was directed to examine the details of income earned from trucks under Section 44AE, for which the assessees would file necessary evidence. The JAO was also instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed a partner in M/s. Ramchandra Ramgopal Financial Services (RRFS), as evidenced by the partnership deed and the firm's Income Tax Return signed by the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee's ledger account in the books of the partnership firm showed a debit balance and recorded cash transactions, including the Rs. 4,00,000/- repayment, between the assessee and the firm. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned the partnership firm and the transaction with it in the list of unsecured loans. Since the repayment was made by the assessee to the partnership firm in his capacity as a partner, the provisions of Section 271E of the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, the findings of the CIT(A) were reversed, and the penalty was deleted. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, which raised legal issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, notice under section 148, and approval under section 151. The Tribunal acknowledged that these legal issues could be raised at any stage, citing the Supreme Court judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT. However, considering the Delhi High Court's ruling in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, which held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned order of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal restored all the legal issues raised in the additional grounds of appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Consequently, the grounds of appeal on merits were also restored to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and subsequent technical issues as reasonable causes, and relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the substantive issues of unexplained investment and undisclosed income, the Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide adequate submissions and evidence before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to afford the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. Considering the assessee had filed detailed written submissions but failed to furnish necessary details, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues by a speaking order in accordance with law, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that in the larger interest of justice and to be fair to both parties, the assessee should be afforded one more opportunity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without touching the merits due to non-compliance. The ITAT observed that the assessee's grievance included non-service of hearing notices, possibly due to an incorrect email ID, and non-consideration of the tax audit report. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was directed to update their latest email ID and contact details on the ITBA portal and to remain vigilant, avoiding adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,70,558/- on account of undisclosed income is sustained, as the assessee fairly admitted this income earned on which TDS was deducted and was required to be disclosed. This addition is subject to the grant of TDS reflected in Form 26AS. Regarding the addition of Rs. 8,13,375/- for time deposit, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that it was a renewal of FDRs created in preceding years, not a fresh investment. Therefore, this issue was restored to the file of the Ld. JAO for necessary verification of documents to prove the renewal aspect. The Ld. JAO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on judicial precedents. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' failure to comply before the CIT(A), attributing it to internal disputes among directors/promoters. While deeming this reason insufficient for bonafide non-compliance, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all issues afresh and pass a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The assessees are cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments. Costs of Rs. 3,000/- each are imposed on both assessees for non-compliance, to be deposited within 30 days. The effective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided reasons for the delay, including a medical emergency involving a close relative, which were found to be in the nature of a reasonable cause. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had summarily dismissed it by not condoning the delay, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A). All issues raised before the Tribunal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' failure to comply before the CIT(A), attributing it to internal disputes among directors/promoters. While deeming this reason insufficient for bonafide non-compliance, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all issues afresh and pass a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The assessees are cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments. Costs of Rs. 3,000/- each are imposed on both assessees for non-compliance, to be deposited within 30 days. The effective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 333 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The primary reason for the delay was the assessee's critical cardiac condition, diagnosed as complete heart blockage, necessitating hospitalization. The Tribunal found this to be a reasonable cause, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the delay in filing Form 10B. Following the ratio of various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Gujarat High Court in cases like Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra and Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption), the Tribunal reiterated that the requirement of filing Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption. As long as the requisite form is filed and made available during the assessment proceedings, mere delay in filing it would not adversely affect the assessee's right to claim exemption. In this case, Form 10B was filed on 31.10.2019 and was available before the processing of the return under Section 143(1) on 11.05.2020. Therefore, the denial of exemption solely on account of the delay in filing Form 10B was set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 11. The appeals for both AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while receiving cash gifts on marriage is a normal tradition in India, and the proviso to Section 56(2)(vi) does not impose a monetary limit, such gifts need to be examined in light of the family status and genuineness. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is employed with Indian Overseas Bank, regularly files returns, and appears to belong to a middle-class family. Although no confirmations for gifts above Rs. 10,000/- were furnished, the Tribunal considered the overall facts and circumstances, including accumulated savings. Consequently, the Tribunal treated Rs. 2,75,000/- of the deposited cash as explained and deleted the addition to that extent. The remaining addition of Rs. 25,000/- was sustained. The ratio is that while gifts on marriage are generally accepted, the genuineness and quantum must be assessed based on the assessee's financial standing and evidence provided, with a pragmatic approach to amounts within a reasonable range.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's first contention of bonafide belief was without merit. However, regarding the second contention, the Tribunal found merit in the argument that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) should be computed only up to the last date prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Act, and not until the date of filing the return in response to a notice under Section 148. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to furnish a return under Section 139(4A) can only be discharged within the period prescribed under Section 139(4). Once this period expires, the assessee is no longer empowered to voluntarily furnish a valid return. Therefore, the default cannot be considered continuing indefinitely, as it becomes incapable of voluntary compliance. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in Swamy Vivekanandha Vidhyala Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) and Bethany Seva Sangam. Accordingly, the penalty was re-computed from 01.11.2015 to 31.03.2016 (the last date for filing a belated return) at Rs. 15,200/-, deleting the remaining amount of Rs. 2,71,400/-. The issue of penalty computation was thus decided in favour of the assessee, albeit with a reduced penalty.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices despite opportunities. However, the Tribunal noted that there could be various reasons for non-appearance/non-compliance which cannot be overruled. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the delay in filing Form 10B. Following the ratio of various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Gujarat High Court in cases like Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra and Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption), the Tribunal reiterated that the requirement of filing Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption. As long as the requisite form is filed and made available during the assessment proceedings, mere delay in filing it would not adversely affect the assessee's right to claim exemption. In this case, Form 10B was filed on 31.10.2019 and was available before the processing of the return under Section 143(1) on 11.05.2020. Therefore, the denial of exemption solely on account of the delay in filing Form 10B was set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 11. The appeals for both AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for the savings bank account interest. The Tribunal reasoned that interest earned on SB accounts is attributable to the assessee's activities of providing credit facilities to its members. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding SB account interest and directed the A.O. to allow the deduction. However, for the interest on deposits with scheduled banks, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The A.O. is to examine and verify if this interest is attributable to the banking business and was utilized for providing credit facilities, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cooperate. The grounds of appeal were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and material on record, noted the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) regarding the property purchase. The assessee emphasized having a valuation report supporting the fair market value on the agreement date, which was not filed during assessment, and that the AO did not refer the issue to the DVO. Acknowledging the assessee's claim of having a good case on merits and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had passed the order considering the lack of compliance despite adequate opportunities, there could be various reasons for the assessee's non-appearance or non-compliance which should not be overruled. Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act without considering the material evidence filed during the appellate proceedings. The assessee's counsel argued that additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, including contract receipts and relevant details, but the CIT(A)'s order did not address this application. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an application for admission of additional evidence and demonstrated the details furnished. Observing that the CIT(A)'s order lacked a finding on this crucial aspect, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee should not suffer due to the non-consideration of evidence that plays a vital role in decision-making. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issues along with the evidences were restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO for fresh verification and adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and was directed to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause, and a pragmatic approach should have been considered. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in B. Madhuri Goud and Collector, Land Acquisition, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condoning delays, especially when substantial justice is paramount and technical considerations should not be given undue emphasis. The Tribunal found no benefit derived by the assessee in causing the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing and should cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal respectfully followed the observations and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & others, emphasizing a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be paramount and technical considerations should not be given undue emphasis. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing and was directed to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sole contention was that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 because the appeal against the cancellation of registration under Section 12A was pending before the Hon'ble ITAT. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence and information. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal (presumably on the pending appeal against cancellation) and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Others, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach to condoning delays. It found that the assessee's request for condonation had reasonable cause, and no benefit was derived from the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence, and principles of natural justice were to be followed, ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the rival submissions and the core issue concerning the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) to the leasehold property and the addition made on the differential value. The assessee's counsel emphasized that the property was leasehold and that a valuation report from a registered valuer, obtained subsequent to the assessment order, could substantiate the case. The Tribunal, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence and information. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their legal grounds and merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific finding on the validity of the Section 148 notice was not adjudicated, as the matter was remitted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities and issued notices, the assessee's non-compliance could stem from various reasons, especially considering the ground that the ITAT had set aside the order in the quantum appeal. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for adequate opportunity to be provided to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for the first issue concerning the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b), the DVO's valuation report, dated 31.03.2024, was not available to the AO when the assessment order was passed on 06.03.2024. Therefore, this issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, along with the evidence submitted by the assessee. For the second issue regarding the sources of purchase of property, the Tribunal, considering the audited financial statements and availability of own funds, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted both disputed issues to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices and the consequent ex-parte decision, the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, citing circumstances beyond their control, could not be entirely overruled. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of evidence in adjudication and noted that the assessee had filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, which was placed in the paper book. Considering that evidence plays a vital role and the assessee should not suffer for non-filing of material information, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A). To meet the ends of justice, the disputed issue along with the additional evidence was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case with evidences and information. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issue back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting the information. The grounds of appeal of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition but remanded the matter for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the sole crux of the disputed issue was the denial of exemption under Section 11 due to the lack of valid registration under Section 12A. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Exemption), Pune, had granted registration under Section 12AB for AY 2022-23 to 2026-27 vide an order dated August 14, 2025. The Ld. DR did not dispute this fact. Considering these submissions and the subsequent grant of registration, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed in favour of the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the sole dispute revolved around the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) due to the delay in filing the return of income. The assessee contended that the delay was bonafide, stemming from a belief that the income was exempt, and that an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) was pending before the Principal CIT. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the pending condonation application, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) on the disputed issue was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to consider the outcome of the condonation application and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before it, noting that the Ld. DR had no specific objections and that the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the delay. The Tribunal, respectfully following the observations and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & others, held that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach to condoning delays, especially for short durations, and stated that technical considerations should not outweigh substantial justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case with evidence and information, and was directed to cooperate for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had grounds to dismiss the appeal based on non-compliance and non-appearance, there could be various reasons for such non-compliance which should not be overruled without providing an opportunity. The Tribunal noted that in cases where a return of income is not filed and the appeal falls under Section 249(4)(b), there is a provision for the assessee to apply to the appellate authority explaining good and sufficient reasons for claiming exemption. Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the entire disputed issues were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.