ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return voluntarily within the prescribed time limit, and the revised income was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any addition, no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned a 16-day delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's business transactions and bank credits, the Tribunal noted the absence of regular returns and proper details. Consequently, the income was estimated at 8% of the estimated total turnover.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption), granting the assessee one final opportunity to submit requisite details, to be decided on facts and law.

Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption). It directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit the requisite details and decide the issue on merits, with the assessee mandated to comply without adjournment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. Considering the best judgment assessments and in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee is also directed to appear on the appointed date without seeking adjournment.

The Tribunal held that Health and Education Cess cannot be levied on tax determined under the DTAA, following decisions of the Delhi High Court and ITAT Pune. The levy of such cess is not permissible when specific DTAA rates are applied.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of Rs. 3,68,76,096 for unexplained cash credit by the CIT(A) was justified, as the addition was based on duplicated entries and the assessee's business turnover supported the cash deposits. The issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for fresh verification due to incomplete documentation. The restriction of disallowance for routine expenses and unverifiable expenses by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions and CBDT circulars, held that the delay in filing the return of income (under Section 139(4A)/139(5)) and Form 10B should be condoned. It emphasized that the filing of the audit report is directory in nature and substantial compliance would suffice, especially when filed during appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for exemption.

The tribunal noted that the assessee intends to withdraw both appeals under the DTVSV Act, having obtained Form-2. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on a previous ITAT order that had quashed the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the revision proceedings were invalid as the AO had examined the issue and taken a plausible view.

The Tribunal restored both issues (excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rate) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the excess cane price, it directed consideration in light of Section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act. For the sugar sale, it directed the AO to consider specific documents, the State Government's GR, and calculate differences based on levy price instead of market price.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash credit, finding it was based on duplicated entries and genuine business receipts. The assessee's appeals regarding routine expenses and unverifiable expenses were dismissed, as the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowances. However, the assessee's appeal concerning the addition for unsecured loans under Section 68 was partly allowed, and the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide complete documentation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without any basis and without proper application of mind. The reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be vague and lacked specific details regarding the bank account and transaction.

The Tribunal held that the rejection based on filing under the wrong clause was a procedural error, especially when the assessee claimed it was inadvertent. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) to decide afresh, treating the application as filed under the correct section and allowing the assessee an opportunity to file a fresh application if needed.

The Tribunal noted that the deduction under Section 80P was allowed in a previous year based on identical facts. It also acknowledged the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation of unfamiliarity with the e-portal and negligence by the tax consultant as 'reasonable cause'. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, instructing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of a remand report if needed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the totality of the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file, granting the assessee a final opportunity to explain and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and its own benches' decisions and CBDT circulars, held that the delay in filing the return of income (if filed within the time allowed for belated returns under Section 139(5)) and the audit report in Form 10B (if filed during appellate proceedings before the conclusion of assessment) should be condoned. It found the conditions for claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 were substantially met and directed the Assessing Officer/CPC to allow the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return and the audit report should not lead to the denial of exemption under section 11. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal observed that the conditions related to filing the audit report are directory in nature and substantial compliance is sufficient.

The assessee requested to withdraw both appeals as they have opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2024. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting the principles of natural justice regarding short notice periods, restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption). It directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must comply without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's plea of reasonable cause and the fact that best judgment assessments were made. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeals for adjudication. It noted that the original assessment orders were best judgment assessments due to the assessee's failure to appear and furnish details. The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders. It restored the matters to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, recognizing a reasonable cause. While acknowledging the procedural lapses, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to ensure fairness.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report, when substantial compliance has been made, should not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11. Relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal found that the conditions for filing the audit report and return are directory in nature, and substantial compliance is sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income and the audit report (Form 10B) should not be a ground to deny the exemption under Section 11 of the Act, especially when the audit report was signed before filing the return and the submissions indicated reasons beyond the assessee's control. Relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the non-compliance might be due to a communication gap and that the assessee is willing to provide the necessary documents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that although the assessee failed to comply with the notices, it was not intentional, and an opportunity should be granted to present the case. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case with requisite details. The CIT(A)/NFAC was instructed to decide the issues afresh after hearing the assessee, with liberty to pass appropriate orders if the assessee failed to comply.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case with requisite details, provided it appeared without seeking further adjournments. The grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. Since the time limit is mandatory and there is no provision to condone the delay, the CIT(E) rightly rejected the application.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is directed to submit details as called for by the CIT(E) without seeking adjournment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for ex-post-facto approval from the Charity Commissioner. Following precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of capital gains was deleted by the Tribunal and the exemption under section 54F was allowed by the CIT(A) subsequently, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction for interest income earned from cooperative banks by a cooperative society is well settled, and numerous decisions, including Supreme Court judgments, support such deductions. Regarding the NPA provision, the Tribunal found that if disallowed, it would increase business income eligible for Section 80P deduction, making the revision an academic exercise.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 375 days in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte order and the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was on a technical ground of delay, with no adverse findings on the merits of the case. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without proof of service of statutory notices on him during his lifetime is bad in law. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for proceedings against legal representatives, but the initial proceedings must be validly initiated.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed a de novo adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to implead the legal heir on record and provide an opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding the case on merit, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the cited judgments and the reasonable cause presented. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one more opportunity for adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to pass a speaking order after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the reasons provided. The Tribunal restored the issue of registration and approval back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. However, it found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits of Rs. 8,00,000/- and that the purchases were correctly accounted for. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had condoned a similar delay for the A.Y. 2011-12 on identical facts and affidavit. Therefore, the CIT(A) was precluded from taking divergent views. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.