ITAT Patna Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) misinterpreted the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision, asserting that additional claims can be made in appellate proceedings. It held that the assessee's trust, being an educational institution with gross receipts below ₹1 crore, is exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiid) and does not require registration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal found that providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the AO would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the file of the AO with directions to decide the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present arguments and evidences. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without deciding issues on merit violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons bona fide and genuine. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity for representation and to decide the case on merit afresh.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as pure legal issues, which can be raised for the first time on appeal. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide these grounds after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering all relevant facts.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they presented pure legal issues. It restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering all relevant facts. All appeals were consequently allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without deciding on merits, to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, also advising the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, without deciding issues on merit, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to decide it on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A) and agreed with the Ld. DR that in view of the earlier order, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee is at liberty to raise a legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time. The additional grounds were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions can only be made on the basis of seized incriminating material, as per Section 153A of the Act. Since no incriminating material was seized in this case, the AO's action was not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the learned CIT(A). Following the principle that penalty proceedings are ancillary to assessment proceedings, the Tribunal agreed that the penalty appeals should also be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the learned CIT (A) and agreed that the penalty appeals should also be restored to the learned CIT (A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was cryptic and the assessee had not represented its case satisfactorily before the CIT(A). It was held that for the ends of justice, the appeals should be restored to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) received additional evidence and requested a remand report, but passed the order without considering it. Therefore, the case was deemed fit to be set aside and remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation by 285 days. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal observed that the information and details provided by the assessee's counsel required verification by the AO.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the case on merits, which violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and cautioning against unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to set out the point of determination, its decision, and the reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal request as the Authorized Representative did not oppose it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, acknowledging that the substantive issues would be dealt with in the previously filed appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the original orders were passed ex-parte.

The tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting one more opportunity for a hearing to uphold natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly, failing which the CIT(A) could pass orders based on available records. This decision for ITA No. 220/PAT/2025 applies similarly to the other connected appeals.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting another opportunity for a hearing in the interest of natural justice. The tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly with the CIT(A) proceedings. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, without addressing the merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without deciding the issues on merit, was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and cautioning against unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without deciding the issues on merit despite issuing notices, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and cautioned the assessee against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues on merit, which violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without addressing the merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal determined that granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the appeal was set aside and remanded to the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, recognizing them as purely legal issues that can be raised for the first time before an appellate authority. As these issues were not previously adjudicated by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity of being heard in consonance with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits based on available materials and cautioned the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed that since the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT (A), the penalty appeals should also be restored to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty appeals were filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT (A), the penalty appeals were also restored to the CIT (A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that as the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeals should also be sent back to the CIT(A). Thus, the penalty appeals were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A).

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that since the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeals should also be restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty appeals were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR agreed with the assessee's submission. Since the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeals should also be restored to the CIT(A)'s file. Therefore, the penalty appeals were restored to the file of the learned CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT(A). Consequently, the penalty appeals, which are consequential to the quantum appeals, should also be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were pending before the CIT (A). Therefore, in view of the Tribunal's order to restore the quantum appeals, the penalty appeals were also restored to the file of the learned CIT (A).

The Tribunal noted that for AY 2010-11, the AO's order was cryptic and the assessee did not represent before the CIT(A). For both AYs, the appeals were restored to the file of the learned AO for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, particularly as the additional ground for AY 2011-12 required verification of facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal noted that the original order was passed ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders, passed without deciding the issues on merit, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. It restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, while advising against seeking undue adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the ex-parte order was passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason to be bonafide and genuine. The assessee requested an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(A). Considering natural justice, the Tribunal inclined to set aside the CIT(A) order and remand the matter back for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals as the reason provided was bonafide and genuine. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reason provided. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The tribunal admitted the additional legal ground, emphasizing that such issues can be raised for the first time before appellate authorities. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a directive to re-examine the issues, providing the assessee a fair hearing and considering all relevant facts. This decision was also applied to the other connected appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. Given the ex-parte assessment and non-representation before the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo re-adjudication, ensuring the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the appeals were decided ex-parte. It noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) to be decided on merit after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.