ITAT Panaji Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee satisfactorily discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of the initial cash deposit of ₹9,35,000/-. It was established that this amount represented sales proceeds from the grocery business, supported by provisional GST registration and sales invoices from the relevant period. Consequently, the balance addition sustained by the NFAC was vacated.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A due to the assessee's inability to prove the source. However, it held that as the assessee is governed by the 'Communiao Dos Bens' system (Portuguese Civil Code), the unexplained income, being income from other sources (u/s 56) and not salary, must be equally apportioned between the assessee and his spouse as per Section 5A. The AO was directed to assess 50% of the unexplained addition in the appellant's hands.

The Tribunal held that since the society was not registered under Section 12/12A and the individual share of members was indeterminate, Section 164(2) of the Act was applicable, justifying the MMR. However, it also held that the surcharge should be applied according to the prescribed slabs, not at the highest rate.

The Tribunal held that since the society was not registered under Section 12/12A and the individual share of members was indeterminate, Section 164(2) of the Act was applicable, justifying the MMR. However, it also held that the surcharge should be applied according to the prescribed slabs, not at the highest rate.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was valid regarding interest earned on investments with banks other than cooperative banks, as there was a lack of inquiry and it was prejudicial to revenue. However, for interest earned on investments with cooperative banks/societies, the revisionary order was not sustained as it was not prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Participation in proceedings does not waive the requirement for this jurisdictional notice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) sustained the reassessment and addition without providing proper opportunity or considering the assessee's evidence. Therefore, applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing adequate opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in setting aside the AO's order as the AO had applied his mind and considered the assessee's submissions. The AO's order did not satisfy the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, noting that the AO had failed to adequately examine or verify the facts regarding associate members exceeding 15% of total membership, which was crucial for the deduction claimed under Section 80P. The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order to set aside the AO's assessment. Consequently, the matter was directed back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as a cooperative bank is treated as a cooperative society. However, regarding interest income from commercial banks, the Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately examined the issue, necessitating further verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice and the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings as the AO had applied his mind and conducted inquiries. The AO's order was not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, especially since the assessee had provided explanations and supporting documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adequately considering the reasons for non-appearance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost payment of Rs. 1000/-. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC, as the first appellate authority, lacks the power to dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution. Citing Section 251 and judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the NFAC is obligated to adjudicate the appeal on its merits even in an ex-parte scenario. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's dismissal order and remanded the case for a de-novo decision on merits under Section 250(6).

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in revising the AO's order as the AO had applied his mind and considered the assessee's submissions. The AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue simply because it didn't elaborate on every point.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80P could not be allowed as it was made in a belated return filed after the due date, citing Section 80A(5) and judicial precedents.

The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents including 'PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.' and 'DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant', held that the 'situs of the Assessing Officer' is the decisive factor for determining the appellate forum's jurisdiction. Since the Bagalkot AO falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Panaji ITAT Bench, the Panaji Bench does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal. The appeal was dismissed as 'not-maintainable', with a grant of leave to re-institute it before an appropriate bench (e.g., Bangalore Benches) that has territorial jurisdiction over the Bagalkot AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a plausible inquiry and accepted the interest income as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). The PCIT's revisionary order was quashed as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in setting aside the AO's order as it did not satisfy the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had applied his mind and considered the assessee's submissions and facts.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society on its investments with banks is attributable to its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal determined that the NFAC denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as the notices issued provided insufficient response time, resulting in an ex-parte dismissal. It also allowed a new legal ground challenging the reassessment jurisdiction under Section 148, which had not been adjudicated by the NFAC. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the entire matter for de-novo adjudication by the NFAC, directing it to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee and consider all grounds, including the newly admitted legal ground.

The Tribunal found that Ground No. 3 concerning the duty drawback addition was not adjudicated by the NFAC. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal affirmed its limited jurisdiction to address grounds not first adjudicated by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order pertaining to this ground and remanded the matter back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication of Ground No. 3.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s ex parte dismissal but recognized the principles of natural justice and potential valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. Granting another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is provided adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal, applying the principles of condonation of delay from Supreme Court judgments (B. Madhuri Goud and MST Katiji), found reasonable cause for the delay. It condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, acknowledged that there could be valid reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of hearing. The second appeal for A.Y. 2020-21, involving identical facts, was disposed of similarly.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, acknowledged that there could be valid reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of hearing. The second appeal for A.Y. 2020-21, involving identical facts, was disposed of similarly.

The Tribunal ruled that the NFAC erroneously computed the delay by not accounting for the Supreme Court's limitation extension, resulting in an actual delay of 206 days instead of 757. It further held that dismissing the appeal *in limine* without providing an opportunity to explain the delay violated natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remitted the case back for a *de-novo* decision on condonation of delay and then on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal and noted that NFAC had indeed sent notices to the wrong email address, leading to the ex-parte dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to NFAC to reconsider the condonation of delay for the original appeal under section 246A and, if admitted, to decide on merits according to section 250(6).

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with instructions to provide adequate hearing opportunities.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's request for withdrawal and the DR's no-objection, treated the appeal as withdrawn and accordingly dismissed it.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to claimant assessee banks and not to co-operative societies receiving interest from other co-operative societies. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter concerning the penalty under Section 271D was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit information.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, noting that the CIT(A) had not considered all submissions and evidences. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues, along with the newly admitted evidence, to the CIT(A) for fresh verification and adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal was unjustified as it deprived the assessee of a real and effective opportunity of being heard, a violation of natural justice, and failed to pass a speaking order with clear reasons as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized the first appellate authority's obligation to deal with merits even if the assessee is not prosecuted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the case back for a de-novo adjudication and a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to claimant assessees who are co-operative banks with an RBI license. Since the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank, and the payer bank is also not strictly a co-operative bank under the Act's definition, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is allowable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to non-compliance but, considering principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- and cooperating with proceedings.