ITAT Panaji Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance. Recognizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the assessee directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the addition without properly considering the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and consider all submitted evidence.

The Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court decisions on condonation of delay, found that there was sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should be taken. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to submit evidence. All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

During subsequent hearings, the assessee filed a letter requesting to withdraw its appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee leave to revive it later if necessary.

The ITAT, citing Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay, found that the assessee had sufficient cause and that a pragmatic approach should be taken. It condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a further opportunity to present evidence.