ITAT Pune Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding inadequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for denovo adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply with the requirements.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that there was sufficient reason for the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal noted the time gap between withdrawal and deposit but also acknowledged the assessee's NRI status and potential need for liquid funds. Taking a liberal view, it sustained an addition of Rs.15.00 lakh out of the Rs.40.00 lakh, granting relief of Rs.25.00 lakh, accepting part of the source as previous withdrawals and accumulated savings.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were invalid in law because the prior approval from the specified authority, as required under Section 151, was not obtained. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The tribunal held that the CPC erred in disallowing the deductions as the assessee's case did not fall under any of the sub-clauses of Section 143(1) that permit such adjustments. The tribunal noted that being a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the assessee was eligible for the claimed deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(c). The Assessing Officer was directed to allow these claims.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the assessee's inability to respond to notices caused by circumstances beyond their control (accident, arrest, property seizure). The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the interest of justice and the possibility of rectifying the mistake, restored the issue to the CIT(E). The assessee was granted a final opportunity to furnish details, with a direction to avoid adjournments.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, on which the penalties were based, had been restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty orders also needed to be set aside and restored to the ld. CIT(A). This restoration is for de novo adjudication, ensuring a speaking order is passed after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 240 days, admitting the appeal. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to explain its case and submit relevant evidences. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matters concerning both regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) back to the CIT(E) for fresh, de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, it was proper to restore the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant.

The Tribunal acknowledged the error in filing and the contention that the jurisdictional bench is in Mumbai. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that in cases where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. Condoning the delay in filing the appeal was deemed appropriate due to the assessee's remote location, lack of technological proficiency, and reliance on a consultant who failed to inform them of hearing dates.

The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court judgments, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when delay is due to non-deliberate reasons and merits are involved. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance, citing a serious accident, arrest, property seizure, and staff leaving. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seizure of property) which prevented them from responding to notices. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite documents and decide the issue afresh. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking further adjournments.

The Tribunal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities and citing Supreme Court judgments, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It condoned the delay and remanded the quantum appeals for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000 and cooperating with future proceedings. Consequentially, the penalty appeal was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that since the quantum additions, upon which the penalties are dependent, were previously remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the instant penalty appeals are also restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided. While upholding the fact that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was not entirely satisfactory, the Tribunal found that disregarding the entire agricultural income was not justified given the subsequent years' acceptance of such income and the large landholding.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 87 days, considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seizure of property) that prevented compliance. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not adjudicate the appeal on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's argument that Fair Market Value should not be applied when the actual cost of acquisition is available. However, considering the ex-parte nature of the Assessing Officer's order and the lack of information regarding other co-owners, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and considering the fate of other co-partners. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while delay cannot generally be condoned without sufficient cause, if the merits of a case need examination, it should not be dismissed merely on limitation. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions have been remitted to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty orders, being dependent on these additions, must also be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A/12AB and cancelling the provisional registration. It found that the trust's objects were not non-charitable and its activities were not commercial, noting that rental income from trust property is not commercial activity. The Tribunal emphasized that at the registration stage, the CIT(E) should consider the objects of the trust, not assess the books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which are the foundation for the penalties, have been restored to the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals must also be restored to the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The ld.CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order as per Section 250(6).

The tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person are null and void, relying on a Bombay High Court decision. It further found that since the investment occurred in FY 2008-09, any addition for AY 2010-11 was bad in law. The appeal was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seized premises) which prevented compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee trust was required to obtain permission from the Charity Commissioner for loans but failed to do so timely. However, since the assessee had applied for post-facto approval, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) were issued without the approval of the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the assessment year. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notice and order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not grant adequate opportunity for hearing and that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment and is obliged to decide an appeal on its merits, not dismiss it for non-prosecution. The Tribunal relied on a Bombay High Court judgment to support this.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of FTC solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form 67 is not sustainable, especially when the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the assessee admitted to not furnishing complete details, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish necessary evidence. The findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to obtain prior permission from the Charity Commissioner before taking a loan and did not provide details to verify the loan's utilization for the trust's objects. Furthermore, the assessee did not comply with the Right to Education Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was pursuing remedies based on CBDT circulars and that the delay was not intentional. The issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that since the Income and Expenditure Account showed a deficit, there could not be any tax liability as calculated by the CPC. The Tribunal allowed the alternative ground raised by the assessee.

The tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal and condoned it due to the assessee's illness. It observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) verified the investment source provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and ITAT judgments, held that since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year (A.Y. 2017-18), the sanction for initiating reassessment proceedings must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was incorrectly granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were deemed ab-initio void and were quashed.

The Tribunal held that restoring the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on merits would be in the interest of justice and fair play, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s cancellation unjustified. It ruled that Section 13(1)(b) was not applicable as the trust was formed before the 1961 Act. Emphasizing the rule of consistency, the Tribunal noted that the trust's deed and activities remained unchanged, it had been regularly assessed under Section 143(3), and its registration had been granted twice without the genuineness of its activities being questioned. All other grounds for cancellation by the CIT(E), including non-registration under the BPT Act, investment violations, commercial activity allegations, and donations to other trusts, were rejected by the Tribunal, citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the Cost Plus Method adopted by the TPO for benchmarking international transactions was incorrect, favoring the assessee's use of the TNMM method as previously decided in its own case. The disallowance of actuarial valuation gain was sustained, while the deletion of disallowance for project provision cost was upheld.