ITAT Panaji Judgments — July 2025

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte dismissal and confirmation of additions without a speaking order or independent reasoning was irregular and in contravention of Section 250(6) and Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The ITAT emphasized the statutory obligation of the first appellate authority to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits, even if the assessee does not prosecute the appeal. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication (de-novo) in accordance with the law and for passing a speaking order.

The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) set aside the assessment for de-novo assessment under section 251(1) proviso but failed to adjudicate the substantive legal grounds raised by the appellant. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate grounds not considered by the first appellate authority. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the case back to the NFAC to properly adjudicate all legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be automatic for every assessment addition, especially when the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief, subsequently disallowed due to non-compliance of conditions, and taxed in a later year while the earlier year's appeal was pending. There was no intention to under-report income, and the entire tax liability was paid without dispute by the revenue. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 270A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and by overlooking evidence, especially regarding the sale of agricultural land. The CIT(A) merely relied on the AO's findings without considering the assessee's submissions. The matter was thus restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring due process.

The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding DDT, holding that Section 115(O) of the Income Tax Act applies, not the DTAA rate, citing a Special Bench decision. For the ALP adjustment of management fees, the tribunal found that the DRP erred in rejecting additional evidence and restored the issue to the DRP for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to submit further information and evidence.

The Tribunal determined that the original assessment was for 'complete scrutiny', not 'limited scrutiny', based on assessment records. The format of the 143(2) notice did not override this substance. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263, as the AO's failure to inquire into Section 14A disallowance made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that an individual, regardless of residential status, is entitled to the Basic Exemption Limit (BEL) of ₹2.50 Lakhs for income not taxed under Chapter XII. However, BEL is not available for income taxed under Section 115BBE. Crucially, the Tribunal ruled that if an individual's total income, even after additions, does not exceed BEL, they are not obligated to file a return, and thus, reopening under Section 148/149 is invalid. Consequently, the impugned addition under Chapter XII was vacated, and the AO was directed to refund the excess appeal fees.

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC/CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's specific ground that the deduction was inadvertently claimed under section 80P(2)(b) instead of section 80P(2)(a)(i). Citing judicial precedents that the Tribunal cannot adjudicate grounds not first addressed by the appellate authority, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order on this limited score and remitted the matter back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication of the assessee's entitlement under section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The ITAT condoned a 45-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine difficulty in attending proceedings due to being off-shore for work. Adhering to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and explanations.

The Tribunal, emphasizing principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing and directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as 'withdrawn' in limine due to the low tax effect (₹52,23,495/-) falling below the ₹60 Lakh monetary limit set by CBDT Circular 09/2024 and previous circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal at a subsequent stage in accordance with law if stipulated reasons arose.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) in Goa did not have the opportunity to verify the submissions transferred from the CIT(A) Bengaluru, leading to an addition sustained without proper verification and adjudication. It concluded that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, thus violating natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the sustained additions and remanded the matter back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication, directing them to provide three effective hearings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce relevant evidence before the CIT(A), thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the sustained impugned addition was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the appellant three effective hearings to produce all relevant evidence.

The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) failed to consider all relevant submissions and evidences, thereby depriving the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned additions and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective hearings to the appellant and adjudicate the case afresh in accordance with law.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a specific request for a personal hearing, despite written submissions, constituted a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that an adverse order cannot be passed without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for a personal hearing, especially when explicitly requested. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication after providing an effective personal hearing, preferably through virtual mode.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a personal hearing, despite a clear and specific request by the assessee, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Citing various judicial precedents, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the cases for de-novo adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to provide an effective personal hearing through virtual mode and re-adjudicate the matters based on existing records.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a specific request for personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide an effective personal hearing through virtual mode.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a personal hearing despite a specific request constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide an effective personal hearing (preferably through virtual mode) and to consider all material and evidence on record.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by partially confirming additions without providing adequate opportunity or considering the assessee's evidence and submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and this decision also applied to the connected appeal for A.Y. 2011-12.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and overlooked material evidences, merely dealing with the AO's findings. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the DRP did not provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was stationed on a ship, and failed to consider all submissions and evidences. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter concerning the addition under section 69A back to the DRP for a fresh examination, directing them to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal, citing various precedents including a coordinate bench's decision in 'M/s Ashirwad Wines', held that the CIT(A)'s denial of the assessee's specific request for a personal hearing constituted a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with an explicit direction to grant an effective personal hearing (possibly virtual mode) and to consider all material and evidence presented.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) culminated the appellate proceedings without granting the requested personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Citing various judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of personal hearings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an effective personal hearing (virtually) and consider all material and evidence on record.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)'s denial of a specific request for personal hearing constituted a violation of natural justice, citing various judicial precedents. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an effective personal hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a specific request for a personal hearing constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Citing several High Court precedents, it emphasized that denying a personal hearing undermines a taxpayer's ability to present their case effectively. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide an effective personal hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s denial of a personal hearing, despite a specific request, violated the principles of natural justice. Citing various precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for de-novo adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to provide an effective personal hearing, even if virtually, and to consider all materials and evidences on record.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a personal hearing or address the specific request for it violated the principles of natural justice. Citing several judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide an effective personal hearing through virtual mode and conduct de-novo adjudication based on the records.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(A)'s failure to grant a personal hearing or address the specific request for it, despite considering written submissions, violated the principles of natural justice. Citing several judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that an effective personal hearing is crucial. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication after providing an effective personal hearing, preferably through virtual mode, based on the records.

The tribunal held that the NFAC's order was irregular as it failed to adjudicate legal grounds and dismissed other grounds without providing reasons, violating Section 250(6) and natural justice principles. The case was remanded to NFAC for fresh adjudication of all grounds, considering submissions and passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal condoned a 41-day delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. Given the importance of the evidence, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues, along with the additional evidence, to the CIT(A) for fresh verification and adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.