ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For one appeal (ITA No. 2090/PUN/2024), the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity. The other appeal (ITA No. 2091/PUN/2024) was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the time granted to the appellant for compliance was unreasonable and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. Both appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte assessment order was passed during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was also observed that the assessee's PAN was not registered on the e-portal, causing delays in communication and the transfer of the case to the JAO. The assessment was finalized within a short span of nine days after the case was received by the JAO. The assessee's counsel argued that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee residing in a remote rural area and the pandemic, and that she was unaware of the proceedings. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's contention on merits that the property was jointly owned and sold, with only 1/6th of the consideration attributable to her. The registered sale deed was produced as evidence. The AO had not allowed the cost of acquisition/indexed cost of acquisition. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to him. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to respond to notices and produce evidence without seeking adjournments. The grounds of appeal were considered partly allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to prove its case, with directions for the CIT(Exemption) to provide three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication. The appellant was granted one more opportunity to prove its case on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to prove its case, with directions for the CIT(Exemption) to provide three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For one appeal (ITA No. 2090/PUN/2024), the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity. The other appeal (ITA No. 2091/PUN/2024) was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee may have been prevented by sufficient cause from effectively prosecuting its case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the time granted for compliance by the CIT(Exemption) was unreasonable. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the time granted for compliance by the CIT(Exemption) was unreasonable. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which allows disallowance of deductions for belated returns, was prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22. Therefore, for AY 2019-20, the CPC was not justified in disallowing the Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment under Section 148 was barred by limitation as the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) were not met. The Assessing Officer did not possess the required evidence to extend the limitation period beyond three years.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the short span between hearing notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment under Section 148 was barred by limitation as the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) were not met. The Assessing Officer did not possess the required evidence to extend the limitation period beyond three years.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate certain grounds raised by the assessee and that the order was passed without proper consideration of all contentions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, following a coordinate bench's decision for other assessment years. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amount of income tax paid was already included as an addition in the assessee's return of income and was available to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit required documents.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Delhi Bench.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not fall under the specified clauses of Section 270A(2) for under-reporting income, especially since no intimation or assessment order under Section 143(1) or 143(3) was passed. The non-disclosure was considered an inadvertent and bonafide error.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit required documents.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E could not be imposed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, the consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that late fee under Section 234E cannot be imposed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Consequently, consequential interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, stating that if the addition on which penalty was levied is deleted, the penalty cannot survive. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous order dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the allowability of the Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal found the reasons for non-compliance to be genuine and, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to make satisfactory compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the deduction claimed under Section 80P was allowed by the CIT(A) and given effect to, the present appeal filed by the assessee against the earlier denial becomes infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s ex-parte order. The case was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the tax payment made under the Income Declaration Scheme with the old PAN number. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that it was not granted sufficient opportunity by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal found that the notices were issued back-to-back, not providing a proper opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that it was not granted sufficient opportunity by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.