ITAT Nagpur Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee was not properly served notices. It also held that dismissing appeals for non-prosecution and then making observations on merits is legally unsustainable.

The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal unsustainable as the assessee had attempted to represent their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee was not properly served notices. It also held that dismissing appeals for non-prosecution and then making observations on merits is legally unsustainable.

The tribunal held that when an assessee, especially a cooperative society, relies on consultants for litigation, delays caused by mishandling should be considered for substantial justice. The NFAC's reliance on other decisions was deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed on merits, not under Section 144. It held that even if an assessment is under Section 144, legal grounds challenging jurisdiction must be adjudicated, not simply set aside using the proviso to Section 251(1)(a).

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed on merits, not under Section 144. It held that even if an assessment is under Section 144, legal grounds challenging jurisdiction must be adjudicated, not simply set aside using the proviso to Section 251(1)(a).

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed on merits, not under Section 144. It held that even if an assessment is under Section 144, legal grounds challenging jurisdiction must be adjudicated, not simply set aside using the proviso to Section 251(1)(a).

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed on merits, not under Section 144. It held that even if an assessment is under Section 144, legal grounds challenging jurisdiction must be adjudicated, not simply set aside using the proviso to Section 251(1)(a).

The tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution while also deciding on merits is not sustainable. The assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the ITAT and the CIT(A) due to the reasons of ill health. The Tribunal found that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal for delay and then proceeded to decide on merits without addressing the legal issue, which is procedurally incorrect.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, noting that the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was not examined by the lower authorities. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed on merits, not under Section 144. It held that even if an assessment is under Section 144, legal grounds challenging jurisdiction must be adjudicated, not simply set aside using the proviso to Section 251(1)(a).