ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. However, the legal issue raised regarding the validity of reopening under Section 147 was dismissed as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made based on the total sale consideration without allowing for costs, and the assessment order was ex-parte. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal accepted the affidavit of the earlier counsel, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A), and held that the filing of Form 10B is directory. Citing CBDT Circular No.10/2019, the Tribunal directed to grant the benefit of Section 11.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, considering the delay unintentional and beyond their control. They set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) considering the circumstances. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) considering the circumstances, including the pandemic. The appeals were remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the source of deposits in the assessee's bank account were business receipts, supported by documentary evidence. However, since the assessee had not filed an ITR, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to estimate Net Profit at 8% of the total turnover under section 44AD of the Act, sustaining an addition of Rs.6,00,008/-.

The Tribunal restored the issue of addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 13,60,000/- back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to examine the details filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The decision followed precedents from the Tribunal's co-ordinate benches.

The tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, as no proper opportunity was granted earlier.

The Tribunal held that since cooperative banks are essentially cooperative societies, the interest earned on deposits held with them is also eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal followed its own precedents and the assessee's own case from a previous assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC, as notices were allegedly not received by the authorized representative. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a direction for the assessee to comply.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, especially since the assessee had paid taxes in the USA and provided evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter remanded.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply but, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction for proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's claim of illness supported by an affidavit and medical certificate during CIT(A) proceedings, and with no objection from the Revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. This allows the assessee a fresh opportunity to present evidence and submissions for a fair consideration of the additions made.

The Tribunal found it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing as notices were sent to an erstwhile consultant's email ID and not conveyed to the assessee. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are essentially co-operative societies, and therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The decision was based on a consistent line of previous tribunal rulings, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the property registration date (18.10.2013) fell in the subsequent Financial Year (FY 2013-14, AY 2014-15), although some payments were made in advance during the impugned year (AY 2013-14). The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the actual registration date before finalizing the assessment.

The Tribunal condoned a 176-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee had removed the objectionable clauses from its MoA and produced the registered amended MoA, the Tribunal set aside the CIT, Exemption's order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT, Exemption for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to comply with notices and provide the amended MoA without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. The Tribunal held that interest income earned from Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following previous decisions of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and the order was ex-parte. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring a proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting no objection from the Revenue's DR. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) (152 days) and the Tribunal (67 days), recognizing that the assessee should not suffer due to an inadvertent mistake or non-appearance of their representative. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also advised to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard as notices were not sent to the correct email ID. The Departmental Representative raised no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee. The common issue was whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with a cooperative bank.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and the assessee's request for an additional opportunity. Considering the larger interest of justice and that the assessee may have had a genuine cause for non-appearance, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to be vigilant and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order, although passed on 28.12.2018, was manually served on 29.01.2019. Considering the date of manual service, the appeal filed by the assessee on 22.02.2019 was within the prescribed time limits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issue on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal affirmed the denial of deduction under Section 54F of the Act, finding that the assessee failed to construct the new residential house within the statutory period (one year before or two years after transfer for purchase, or three years after transfer for construction). The purchase of the plot and construction approvals occurred significantly prior to the sale of the original asset, and no completion certificate was provided, leading to the conclusion that the conditions for Section 54F were not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to pay advance tax on the basis of admitted tax and not assessed tax. Considering the assessee's payment of self-assessment tax and reinvestment of sale consideration, no further advance tax was payable.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to procure a valuation report from a Registered Valuer, and the Assessing Officer was to consider it and provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that there was reasonable cause for the delay, citing the assessee's father's serious illness and subsequent death, as well as an employee's mistake. Following a Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request for non-prosecution of the appeal, as there was no objection from the Ld. DR.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey was from the assessee's regular business income, as the assessee had no other source of income and provided a necessary explanation. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in treating it as 'income from other sources' and in invoking Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act, aligning with previous consistent Tribunal decisions on similar facts. The tax is to be calculated under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found that a previous order had set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(E) and that the assessee had filed a subsequent appeal. Considering the totality of the facts and for the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored both the Section 12A registration and Section 80G approval issues back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal granted the appellant permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate is not issued.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard due to the short timeframe given for compliance. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT, Exemption's order, concluding that the assessee deserved another opportunity to provide the requested details. The matter was remanded back to the CIT, Exemption for fresh consideration of the application after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is directed to comply without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order remanding the matter to the CIT(E) was still pending and the assessee submitted new additional evidence. Considering these factors and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore both the 12A registration and 80G approval issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard and to decide the issues afresh according to facts and law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. In the absence of any objection from the Revenue and considering the assessee's compliance, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation needs to be added to the current year's depreciation, and once it takes the character of current year depreciation, it becomes eligible for set-off against income from other sources as per Section 72(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that in separate quantum proceedings for the same assessment year, the additions related to capital account and sundry creditors, which formed the basis for the Section 270A penalty, had already been deleted. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the penalty could not survive and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel it, allowing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central) grossly erred in cancelling the registrations under Section 12AB(4) for registrations initially granted under Section 12A (old regime), as Section 12AB does not explicitly grant power to cancel old Section 12A registrations. It further clarified that the term 'specified violation' under Section 12AB(4) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, effective from April 1, 2022, and cannot be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal found that the trusts' activities of organizing medical conferences and research, often with sponsorships, were genuine and approved by the Maharashtra Medical Council, and no violation of 'other laws' (like MCI Regulations) was proven to be attributable to the trusts themselves. Therefore, the cancellations of registration were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely on the ground of improper satisfaction. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive the proceedings if the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not issued.