ITAT Patna Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that since the issue was a technical default and the assessee had already obtained registration under section 12A, the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to rectify the mistakes in their application for 80G recognition.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal filed by the appellant due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. It was observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders as the assessee did not appear or avail opportunities. The Tribunal felt it necessary to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the completion of all formalities. It was observed that Section 91(2) of the Finance Act, 2024, deems appeals withdrawn upon issuance of the Form-2 certificate.

The Tribunal heard the submissions and noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal of the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte due to non-representation. Given the history of non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the incorrect legal advice received by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that proper representation was not made before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without a proper adjudication on merits. It was noted that the CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order detailing the points for determination, decision, and reasons, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not fulfilled this obligation and had not properly considered the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit and the delay was not condoned. Furthermore, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to prosecute the appeal and cure the defects.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the Legal Aid Services, High Court Patna, within sixty days.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided details before the Assessing Officer and had not represented themselves before the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

In the interest of justice, the assessee is granted one more opportunity to produce details before the Assessing Officer. The issues on merits are restored to the file of the AO for adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the assessee's control. To ensure natural justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the need for natural justice. The CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the transactions, characterized by rapid buy-sell within the same day leading to losses, appeared manipulative and were not genuine business transactions. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the substance of the transactions and granted relief based on the form of transactions conducted on the NMCE platform.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal due to the assessee's unawareness of the web portal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order to meet the principle of natural justice, remitting the matter back with a direction for one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1083 days, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all relevant documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 304 days considering the health issues of the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 482 days in filing the appeal, finding it unintentional and admitting the appeal for hearing. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation with the Assessing Officer and non-response to notices, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) accepted the loan claims but treated the payment through the assessee's bank account as unexplained. The Tribunal observed that payments were made through the bank, and there was no allegation of cash deposits before the cheque issuance, thus the source for the investment was explained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 544 days and admitted the appeal. Subsequently, at the time of hearing, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Form No. 1 and Form 2 were duly filed.

In the interest of justice, the assessee is granted one more opportunity. The issue is restored to the file of the AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the Legal Aid Services, High Court Patna, within sixty days. If the cost is not paid, the order of CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive any communication regarding the hearing before the CIT(A). Hence, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence regarding the land's agricultural nature was not produced during the assessment. To ensure justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal considered the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

Considering the assessee's non-cooperation, the tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication. This is contingent on the assessee paying Rs. 25,000/- to the Bihar State Legal Aid Services Authority within 60 days and actively cooperating with the AO, failing which adverse inference may be drawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons genuine and bonafide, and aligning with the principle of deciding cases on merit. Subsequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to the assessee to revive them through a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 process is unsuccessful.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal and the DR did not oppose this request. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, as the assessee himself sought to withdraw the appeal and no objection was raised by the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals. It was noted that the assessee had not appeared before the lower authorities and sought restoration of the appeals. The Tribunal, in consonance with the principle of natural justice, remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing of both appeals. It was observed that neither the assessee nor their AR appeared for the hearing. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had presented bank statements and cash book at the appellate stage, these were not submitted to the AO during the assessment. The Tribunal found it a fit case to remand the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the genuine reasons provided by the assessee and the absence of objection from the revenue. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had inadvertently claimed the deduction under Section 54 instead of Section 54F. It was also observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the judicial precedents and denied the deduction without proper consideration. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO to allow the claim under Section 54F.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 24 lakhs in August 2016 for civil construction work and spent some portion. The remaining Rs. 15 lakhs was deposited during the demonetization period. Given the nature of the business and the explained source of funds as cash withdrawals, the Tribunal found no other evidence to suggest an undisclosed source for the deposits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had indeed withdrawn Rs.24 lakhs in August 2016 for civil construction work and other expenses, and the remaining Rs.15 lakhs was subsequently deposited during demonetization. Finding no evidence of other sources for the cash deposits and concluding they originated from earlier withdrawals, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.15,00,000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal, finding it to be due to a genuine and reasonable cause beyond the assessee's control and without any mala fide intention. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order by NFAC was dismissed without considering the merits of the case, thus lacking natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 256 days, stating that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time due to his medical condition. Therefore, the delay was condoned. To ensure the principle of natural justice and provide an opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals).

The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte after giving several opportunities for substantiation, which were not utilized by the assessee. The ITAT, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to present the case before the CIT(Appeals) but, to ensure natural justice, set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 189-day delay, finding it to be for reasonable cause and without deliberate intent to delay. It observed that the CIT(A) and NFAC orders were passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee or considering the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be due to reasonable cause and not mala fide. It noted that the CIT(A) order was dismissed without considering the merits and without sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders based on available records.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the assessee was unresponsive to notices from the lower authorities and did not present their case properly. However, the grounds of appeal challenged the estimation of income by the AO without proper verification of books of accounts.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of closing stock back to the Assessing Officer for detailed examination, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding. Regarding the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed employee contributions, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision and reiterating that such contributions are deductible only if deposited within statutory due dates, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.