ITAT Panaji Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the denial of deduction for interest income from deposits with scheduled banks. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose, directing verification of the society's multipurpose activities and fresh adjudication, with directions to allow deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) and u/sec80P(2)(c) of the Act after proper verification.

The Tribunal condoned the 164-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the pending application for condonation of delay for Form 10B filing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to consider the outcome of the condonation of delay application by the CCIT(E) before deciding the claim for exemption u/s 11.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the denial of deduction for interest income from deposits with scheduled banks. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose, directing verification of the society's multipurpose activities and fresh adjudication, with directions to allow deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) and u/sec80P(2)(c) of the Act after proper verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for dealings with nominal/associate members and interest income from scheduled banks to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It directed that the deduction for interest income from cooperative banks/societies be allowed as per Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and for not prosecuting the earlier appeals. The Tribunal also noted that remanding the case would grant the assessee a second opportunity to make good their case, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and for not prosecuting the earlier appeals. The Tribunal also noted that remanding the case would grant the assessee a second opportunity to make good their case, which is not permissible.

The ITAT held that the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the applications without providing sufficient and effective opportunity to the assessee to address the deficiencies and adverse findings. The tribunal emphasized that opportunities must be real and not mere formalities. Consequently, the rejection orders were set aside, and the applications were remanded to the CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication with specific instructions to provide at least two effective opportunities to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the applications without providing sufficient and effective opportunity to the assessee to address the deficiencies and adverse findings. The tribunal emphasized that opportunities must be real and not mere formalities. Consequently, the rejection orders were set aside, and the applications were remanded to the CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication with specific instructions to provide at least two effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) does not possess the power to dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution and is statutorily obligated to decide the appeal on its merits as per Sections 250(6), 251(1)(a), (b), and 251(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case for a fresh adjudication de-novo on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing them to pragmatically consider the condonation of delay application after giving the assessee an opportunity to file it with reasonable cause and paying a cost of Rs. 2000/-.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the additions without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and overlooking material evidence and documents filed. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore all disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.