ITAT Patna Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents during assessment and did not file submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals). However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce relevant documents during assessment proceedings and also failed to file written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities. However, to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's books of account were audited, and the expenses incurred were for running the institute. However, the lower authorities had not properly considered the statutory expenditure and supporting vouchers.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was prevented from filing appeals within the stipulated time due to the judicial custody of its Managing Director and condoned the delay of 172 days. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not filed written submissions or appeared before the CIT(Appeals) and later before the ITAT, failing to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 362 days, considering the assessee's explanation regarding the previous counsel's inaction. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce relevant documents before the Assessing Officer and failed to file written submissions or evidence before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities. Therefore, to meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeals within the stipulated time due to circumstances including the judicial custody of its director. The delay of 172 days was condoned. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without meeting the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce relevant documents during assessment proceedings and failed to substantiate its claim before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities. However, to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the assessee established sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was prevented from filing appeals within the stipulated time due to the incarceration of their Director. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days. While the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the orders to ensure the principle of natural justice, remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the rival contentions and material on record. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the proceedings, and the CIT(Appeals) was granted liberty to pass an order based on merits if cooperation was lacking.

The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee and the argument of the Departmental Representative. Given that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide submissions or evidence before the CIT(Appeals) and also did not substantiate its claim before the ITAT. To meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back for a fresh decision, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be genuine and bonafide. The Tribunal observed that there was non-compliance by the assessee during the assessment, leading to an addition. The assessee contended that the cash deposits did not belong to them and they were a commission agent.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principles of natural justice, remitting the matter back for one more opportunity of hearing. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate.

The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the permission to withdraw the appeal was granted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced relevant documents during assessment and had also failed to file submissions before the CIT(Appeals). However, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons genuine and bonafide. The Tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication after proper inquiry.

The Bench accepted the request of the assessee and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. The assessee's main challenge was the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found no fault in the assumption of jurisdiction and noted that no details regarding business turnover or expenses were provided.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit and upheld the Assessing Officer's order. The tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and perused the available records. It was noted that the assessee had participated in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which provides a mechanism for settlement of disputes. The Tribunal, taking into account all circumstances, dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had given multiple opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee failed to appear or submit any response. Consequently, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard, in the interest of natural justice.

The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal during the hearing. The Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the permission was granted, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share application money provider. The contention regarding the change of the investor company's address was not supported by evidence and was deemed not tenable. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that both matters deserved to be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had misdirected herself in detecting commercial activities. The assessees' activities were wholly and exclusively incidental to running schools, which were duly recognized and affiliated. Even rental income in one case was properly accounted for.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the interest of justice required the matter to be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the amended provision of Explanation 2 to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, which disallowed CSR expenses, was effective from April 1, 2015, and thus not applicable to AY 2014-15. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the case of PEC Ltd. and noting that for AY 2014-15, CSR expenses were allowable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not diligent in presenting their case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), with either no or partial compliance to notices. The assessee's AR pleaded lack of awareness of procedures and prompt advice from the tax consultant.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in detecting commercial activities, as the assessees' receipts were exclusively incidental to running schools, which were duly recognized. The impugned orders were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. It noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte due to non-response from the assessee.

The Tribunal perused the orders and heard submissions. While the DR supported the CIT(E)'s order, the Tribunal felt that for substantive justice, the matters should be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was ex-parte. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee trusts were engaged in running schools, and all their receipts were incidental to these activities. The rental income in one case was also properly accounted for. The CIT(E) had misdirected herself in detecting commercial activities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had misdirected herself in detecting commercial activities. The assessee trusts were primarily involved in running schools, and their receipts were exclusively incidental to these activities. The Tribunal also noted that the activities were recognized by government authorities and boards.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 8% net profit for the wholesale trading of kerosene was excessive, considering it was a controlled commodity. A net profit rate of 2.5% was deemed reasonable. For the logistics services, a net profit rate of 7% was considered justified. The denial of deductions under sections 80C and 24(b) was confirmed due to the absence of supporting documents.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had not questioned the source of cash deposits and had accepted other deposits as business receipts. The CIT(A) noted that the demonetization period deposits were made in smaller amounts and at regular intervals, indicating they were regular business receipts, and the AO failed to prove the currency was banned.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the case of a co-owner, Bhuneshwar Rai, was decided by the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee, relying on CBDT Circular No. 36/2016. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged the findings of fact by the AO in the present case. Given the differing views taken by different CIT(A)s on similar facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the notice of demand is an integral part of the assessment order and can be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The action of the AO in rectifying the notice of demand was not an error.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was passed ex-parte and in violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order.

The Tribunal found a mismatch between the total investment shown by the assessee (Rs. 72,07,050/-) and the figure adopted by the AO. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the AO.

The tribunal felt the assessee deserved an opportunity to present the facts and thus set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was instructed to remember that denial of a hearing due to delay should only be resorted to in very extenuating circumstances, and the assessee is to file a condonation petition with an affidavit.

The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo).