ITAT Panaji Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the disallowance under Section 80P without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee or considering all material evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the disputed issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a direct nexus existed between the fixed deposits, the bank guarantees furnished for importing capital goods under the EPCG Scheme, and the assessee's capital expenditure for the project. Consequently, the interest income earned on these fixed deposits was incidental to the project and eligible for set-off against pre-operative expenses/project cost, rather than being taxable as income from other sources. The ground related to the addition of weighment charges was withdrawn by the assessee's representative and thus dismissed.

The tribunal remanded the addition under section 69C back to the A.O. for fresh examination of new evidence regarding the source of funds for housing loan repayment. It allowed the deduction under section 80C, holding that the cooperative credit society was eligible as it provides housing loans to its members.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case with evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the disputed addition of Rs. 9,25,500/- under section 69A was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper chance to present its case.

The Tribunal acknowledged the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal but noted the assessee's challenge to the additions. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It remanded all disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Considering the information provided by the assessee regarding the generation of duplicate appeal numbers for the same assessment year and the assessee's request for withdrawal, with no objections from the Ld.DR, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal treated the appeal ITA.NO.217/PAN/2025 as withdrawn and dismissed it.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay, but no application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to file a condonation of delay application and then adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without an application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) being filed or considered. Considering the principles of natural justice and advocating a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the disputed issues on merits after allowing the assessee to file and considering the application for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal condoned the 87-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, but the assessee cited health issues as the reason for non-appearance. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The ITAT condoned the 152-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasonable cause provided. Observing that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was passed without full consideration of facts and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering principles of natural justice, it set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting no objections from the Ld. DR. Citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's grounds of appeal challenging the denial of deduction, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case, subject to paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, noting it was not made in the original or revised return. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for depreciation on the trawler, finding that it was indeed 'put to use' and generated income in the relevant financial year, despite late registration. It also allowed the partial cost disallowance, stating that the acquisition's genuineness was not doubted and it constituted capital expenditure appropriately reflected in the balance sheet.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for presumptive taxation under section 44AD as it was not opted for in the original or revised return. However, it allowed the claim for depreciation on the trawler, finding that it was put to use and generated income despite delayed registration, and its genuineness was not doubted. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding the partial disallowance of the trawler's cost, noting that the acquisition was capital expenditure, its genuineness was not disputed, and funds were sourced through bank loans and own funds, despite the absence of complete bills.

The Tribunal ruled that the provisions of section 80AC, making it mandatory to file the return within the due date for claiming section 80P deduction, were applicable to cooperative societies only from Assessment Year 2018-19. Since the impugned assessment year was 2015-16, section 80AC was not applicable. The Tribunal, relying on precedents, directed the AO to allow the deduction under section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80AC are not applicable to cooperative societies for A.Y. 2015-16, as its applicability to Section 80P deductions began from A.Y. 2018-19. Furthermore, Section 80A(5) did not include Section 80P in its proviso until A.Y. 2017-18, allowing the claim even if the return was filed after the due date in response to a notice. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the validity of assessment proceedings and the Section 69A addition without providing proper opportunity of hearing or considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity is provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee has a good case on merits and deserves an opportunity to present evidence. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's lack of compliance. Recognizing the principles of natural justice and the assessee's contention of having a strong case on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case with evidence.

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and thus set aside the Pr. CIT's order on this point. However, regarding interest income from scheduled banks, the Tribunal found that the AO did not sufficiently examine or verify the facts, therefore upholding the Pr. CIT's direction for verification and dismissing the assessee's appeal on this specific ground.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity. Upholding the 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 on merits, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present evidence.

The tribunal condoned the 483-day delay in filing the present appeal, finding sufficient cause and relying on judicial precedents. It held that the NFAC erred in computing the delay for the first appeal by overlooking the Supreme Court's extension of the limitation period during the pandemic, which would have rendered the delay as NIL. Additionally, the tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the NFAC dismissed the appeal without a hearing opportunity. The *ex-parte* order of the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the NFAC for *de-novo* consideration, including the condonation of delay and merits.

The Tribunal, adopting the reasoning from various judicial precedents, held that the interest earned by the appellant society from deposits with co-operative banks (like BDCC, Saraswat, Tukaram, Cosmos, KAIJ Co-op. Banks), which are registered as co-operative societies, fully qualifies for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal found the views of the lower tax authorities to be inconsistent with legal positions and binding judicial precedents, thereby setting aside the impugned order and reversing the disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal. Acknowledging the CIT(A)'s dismissal was due to non-compliance but also that the assessee claimed to have a strong case on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. Applying principles of natural justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its evidences and information.