ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not valid. The Tribunal observed that seized documents from Shri Sachin Nahar's premises contained information relating to the assessee, making Section 153C of the Act applicable. The proper course of action for the revenue should have been to initiate proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 148. The Tribunal referred to the CIT(A)/NFAC's detailed reasoning and various decisions supporting this view, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in *Sejal Jewellery & Anr. Vs. Union of India*. Since the assessment was held to be invalid due to the incorrect invocation of Section 148 instead of Section 153C, the proceedings initiated by the PCIT under Section 263 became infructuous. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Section 263 proceedings. Other grounds were not adjudicated as the assessee succeeded on the primary legal issue.

The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient and valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the substantial error in the demand notice and the subsequent rectification. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

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.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including court orders and bank guarantees, stating they go to the root of the issue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the case for denovo adjudication in light of the additional evidence. The assessee was directed to file all relevant documents before the AO, who was to provide an opportunity of being heard.

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 granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Assessing Officer had deleted the addition as per CIT(A)'s directions and the DR had no objection.

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted in a previous order, the penalty had no legs to stand. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the facts, found it expedient to restore the matter to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-adjudicate the application after giving the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.

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 since the notice was issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was mandatory under Section 151(ii). The approval granted by the PCIT was therefore invalid, vitiating the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing the deduction under Section 80G was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches which allowed deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenses, stating that the legislative intent did not restrict such claims.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the three-year limit specified in Section 149(1)(b) for escaped income below Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessment order was void ab initio, and an addition of Rs. 85,000 was deleted due to lack of evidence and opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was part of the total sale consideration from the assessee's business of trading in cashew seeds, mangoes, and Ayurvedic medicines. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total cash withdrawals exceeded his total cash deposits prior to the demonetization period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after giving the assessee a final opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 for AY 2010-11, dated March 31, 2017, was issued in the name of Mr. Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi, who had died on July 15, 2008. The Tribunal noted that no notice can be issued in the name of a deceased person. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs ACIT, the Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 is bad in law, and the order under section 144 read with section 147 dated December 15, 2017, for AY 2010-11 is void ab initio. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 566 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reason for the delay. The issue of double taxation was not explicitly decided as the assessment itself was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering the amendments made to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Bill 2024. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion, noting that similar issues were previously examined and dropped by the Assessing Officer. The consequential assessment order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that since Form 10CCB was filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), the assessee cannot be denied the deduction. The delay in filing was due to technical issues, and the assessee had raised a grievance.

The Tribunal held that a wrong selection of a section code should not be fatal to the proceedings. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason for non-compliance to be a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application after granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit all required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided in the affidavit. The Tribunal also noted a CBDT circular extending the deadline for filing applications. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without providing an opportunity to be heard and without adjudicating on merits, solely based on the non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum addition appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on a technicality and not on merits. Observing that the CIT had already granted registration under Section 12AB from a subsequent date on a second application, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contentions, found that several procedural lapses occurred during the assessment proceedings. These included the failure to provide an opportunity for the cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Kumar, the very short period given to the assessee to furnish voluminous details after the satisfaction note was provided on June 22, 2022, the reference to the DVO despite the project being awarded through a tender process, and the suspension of the project for three years due to legal disputes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer, leading to substantial additions. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19 back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was permitted to submit all required submissions and evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-appeals filed by the revenue were also remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without providing an opportunity to be heard and without adjudicating on merits, solely based on the non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum addition appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity for hearing and adjudicating on merits. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal opined that the assessee was not required to pay advance tax if their income was below the taxable limit.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contentions, found that several procedural lapses occurred during the assessment proceedings. These included the failure to provide an opportunity for the cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Kumar, the very short period given to the assessee to furnish voluminous details after the satisfaction note was provided on June 22, 2022, the reference to the DVO despite the project being awarded through a tender process, and the suspension of the project for three years due to legal disputes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer, leading to substantial additions. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19 back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was permitted to submit all required submissions and evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-appeals filed by the revenue were also remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, which held that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, are liable to be dropped. Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 are quashed.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contentions, found that several procedural lapses occurred during the assessment proceedings. These included the failure to provide an opportunity for the cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Kumar, the very short period given to the assessee to furnish voluminous details after the satisfaction note was provided on June 22, 2022, the reference to the DVO despite the project being awarded through a tender process, and the suspension of the project for three years due to legal disputes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer, leading to substantial additions. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19 back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was permitted to submit all required submissions and evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-appeals filed by the revenue were also remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents and evidence to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contentions, found that several procedural lapses occurred during the assessment proceedings. These included the failure to provide an opportunity for the cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Kumar, the very short period given to the assessee to furnish voluminous details after the satisfaction note was provided on June 22, 2022, the reference to the DVO despite the project being awarded through a tender process, and the suspension of the project for three years due to legal disputes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer, leading to substantial additions. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19 back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was permitted to submit all required submissions and evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-appeals filed by the revenue were also remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3) regarding utilization of accumulated funds within 5 years is applicable prospectively from AY 2023-24 onwards. For the period in question (AY 2017-18), the unamended provisions were applicable, and the funds were utilized within the prescribed time. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) and granted the assessee one final opportunity to submit the required details and documents. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the case afresh after considering the submissions.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contentions, found that several procedural lapses occurred during the assessment proceedings. These included the failure to provide an opportunity for the cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Kumar, the very short period given to the assessee to furnish voluminous details after the satisfaction note was provided on June 22, 2022, the reference to the DVO despite the project being awarded through a tender process, and the suspension of the project for three years due to legal disputes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer, leading to substantial additions. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19 back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was permitted to submit all required submissions and evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-appeals filed by the revenue were also remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer provided reasons for reopening belatedly and did not grant sufficient time to the assessee to file objections. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without discussing the legal grounds raised. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contentions, found that several procedural lapses occurred during the assessment proceedings. These included the failure to provide an opportunity for the cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Kumar, the very short period given to the assessee to furnish voluminous details after the satisfaction note was provided on June 22, 2022, the reference to the DVO despite the project being awarded through a tender process, and the suspension of the project for three years due to legal disputes. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer, leading to substantial additions. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19 back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was permitted to submit all required submissions and evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-appeals filed by the revenue were also remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contention regarding the reversal of earlier years' BDDR provision was not raised before the Assessing Officer. However, it was raised before the CIT(A). Since the Assessing Officer did not have the opportunity to analyze this contention, the issue was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an adjustment under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be made while processing the return under Section 143(1). This is because Section 143(1)(a)(ii) pertains to 'incorrect claims apparent from the return', and Section 50C involves specific procedures that are not covered under this category. Making such an adjustment under 143(1) deprives the assessee of the statutory right to object as per Section 50C(2).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Due to procedural lapses, including denial of cross-examination and short time for providing details, the Tribunal decided to set aside the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, considering the non-appearance was due to the tax consultant's inaction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the DTVSV scheme for the penalty, but the impugned appeal was against the assessment order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the assessment order for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was to file necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Due to procedural lapses, including denial of cross-examination and short time for providing details, the Tribunal decided to set aside the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the error in filing the application was a curable defect and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to correct it. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.

The Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on a technicality and not on merits. Observing that the CIT had already granted registration under Section 12AB from a subsequent date on a second application, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.