ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2025

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 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 noted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices despite opportunities. However, considering the situation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with all notices. The CIT ought to have provided one more opportunity for explanation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, allowing the grounds of appeal to be partly allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issue to the CIT's file. The assessee was directed to provide the necessary details to substantiate its case, and the CIT(E) was instructed to decide the applications afresh on merits.

The Tribunal restored all three issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to provide the assessee with due opportunity to be heard and present evidence, particularly regarding the payment of deducted taxes, the genuineness of cash payments, and the identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Exemption) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the required information and documents promptly.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice and fair play to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be granted one final opportunity to submit all required details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a section code should not be fatal to the assessee's claim, especially when there is a precedent for treating such applications as filed under the correct code. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could explain the source of cash deposit from cash sales only to the extent of Rs. 2,02,900/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,47,100/- was confirmed to be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with all notices. The CIT ought to have provided one more opportunity for explanation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, allowing the grounds of appeal to be partly allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the notices might have been missed and that one more opportunity should be given. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the 721-day delay, citing the reasons provided and a liberal approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. Considering that the appeal against the quantum addition was still pending and the assessee had failed to appear before the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) to consider the application afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments that distinguished the Totagars case.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) to provide one last opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required documents and evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide the information without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issue to the CIT's file. The assessee was directed to provide the necessary details to substantiate its case, and the CIT(E) was instructed to decide the applications afresh on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue of approval back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to provide all necessary details and attend hearings, and the CIT(E) is to grant proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices despite opportunities. However, considering the situation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide the required details, an opportunity should be granted to substantiate its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to present the required information.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications solely on the technical ground of using a wrong section code was not appropriate. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications solely on the technical ground of using a wrong section code was not appropriate. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal and justice-oriented approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issues on merits after calling for information from the assessee and obtaining a remand report from the JAO.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issue to his file. The CIT(E) is directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present and substantiate its case by filing requisite details. The applications under Section 12A and 80G are to be decided afresh thereafter.

The Tribunal held that the GST paid on the unaccounted sales should be deducted from the gross profit before levying penalty. It also noted that the assessee had declared the income in its return before the due date and the financial year had not ended at the time of search.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of reasonable cause and the larger interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds on merits and passed a speaking order, granting proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal and justice-oriented approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issues on merits after calling for information from the assessee and obtaining a remand report from the JAO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the assessee's application for approval under section 80G(5), providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of reasonable cause and the larger interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds on merits and passed a speaking order, granting proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, the addition made under Section 43CA was deleted as the difference between the agreement value and market price was less than 5%.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issue to his file. The CIT(E) is directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present and substantiate its case by filing requisite details. The applications under Section 12A and 80G are to be decided afresh thereafter.

The Tribunal held that the GST paid on the unaccounted sales should be deducted from the gross profit before levying penalty. It also noted that the assessee had declared the income in its return before the due date and the financial year had not ended at the time of search.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) stating it was not intentional and due to a reasonable cause related to PAN issues. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law due to improper approval obtained under Section 151. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under Section 271D, which were initiated during these invalid reassessment proceedings, were also unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal, relying on a previous decision in Mohan Shriniwas Bhise's case, held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate exemption for Gratuity and Leave Encashment based on his service tenure with MSEB and MSEDCL. The issue was remitted to the AO for verification and calculation.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the CPC did not have the power to disallow deductions under Section 80P for returns filed beyond the due date. Therefore, the CPC erred in its disallowance.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the CPC did not have the power to disallow deductions under Section 80P for returns filed beyond the due date. Therefore, the CPC erred in its disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation without deciding the issue on merits. However, it was observed that in the quantum appeal of the assessee, the CIT(A)/NFAC, by an appellate order dated 31.01.2025, had set aside the case to the file of the AO for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a full opportunity to the assessee. In light of this development in the quantum appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The matter was restored to the file of the AO to decide the penalty afresh once the fresh assessment is completed. The Tribunal directed accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form No. 3CFA along with the return of income was a procedural error. Following the precedent, the Tribunal decided to allow the Assessee to file the form and directed the Assessing Officer to consider it for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) stating it was not intentional and due to a reasonable cause related to PAN issues. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) stating it was not intentional and due to a reasonable cause related to PAN issues. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) stating it was not intentional and due to a reasonable cause related to PAN issues. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) stating it was not intentional and due to a reasonable cause related to PAN issues. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) stating it was not intentional and due to a reasonable cause related to PAN issues. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal by relying on facts of another assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made a plausible assessment after due verification and that the issue was debatable. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as both conditions (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met.

The Tribunal held that the Additional/Joint CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the grounds raised by the assessee and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also noted the EPFO's directive not to levy penalties for such delays.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the CIT(A) due to communication errors. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to plead its case before the CIT(A) due to communication errors. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.