ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee, noting sufficient cause for non-filing previously. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the ld. CIT(A) to grant the assessee a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits by providing evidence of fishing business, sale of fish, and relevant licenses. The bank account in question was also in the name of four individuals, indicating the addition could not be solely attributed to the assessee without proper reasoning.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the Assessee with an opportunity for hearing and to file all relevant documents.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly examining the documents filed by the assessee on the income tax portal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's delay in filing the application was a bona fide and unintentional error. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with the notices.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was not sustainable in law. Following various High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P.

The Tribunal noted that the last two notices of hearing to the assessee were issued within a short period of 12 days, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the permissible time limit calculated as per Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated were considered void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to comply with the notices and that there was a reasonable cause for the non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 before the due date for filing the return of income is directory and not mandatory, as Rule 128(9) does not prescribe any penalty for delay and the Act and DTAA do not prescribe a timeline. The assessee is eligible for FTC as Form 67 was filed before the completion of assessment.

Following a Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate all grounds of appeal on merits and cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeal for de novo adjudication, instructing the Ld.CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.

The Tribunal found the assessee's delay in filing the application to be bona fide and unintentional. It set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back to the CIT with a direction to consider the application as filed in time, grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide afresh.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had not applied his mind to the facts submitted by the assessee and that the reasons for rejection were not sufficient. The Tribunal found that the assessee's objects were charitable, its activities were genuine and in line with its objects, and it had complied with the relevant provisions of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed typographical errors in Form 3CD. A Chartered Accountant's certificate was provided to support this claim. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and directed them to verify the facts.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard due to non-receipt of notices, attributing it to an incorrect communication address. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 to the Legal Aid cell.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate all grounds of appeal and cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the quantum appeal for de novo adjudication.

The tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the order prematurely, denying the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the ld. CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a *de novo* adjudication, allowing the assessee to file submissions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of the Rs. 2,21,000/- deposited in cash, which was subsequently transferred to Vakrangi. Therefore, no addition was required for this amount.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), who had sustained an addition of Rs.9,09,000/- out of the total assessed income. The CIT(A) considered the assessee's submissions, including agricultural income claims, and applied the concept of Peak Credit.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had already set aside the quantum assessment order and remanded it back to the AO, the penalty order should also be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after the quantum assessment is decided.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of registration under Section 12AB was remanded back to the CIT by a coordinate bench, the order rejecting the Section 80G(5) application should also be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration. The Tribunal found that the assessee had commenced activities as per its charitable objects and that the requested documents were not essential at the inception stage of the organization, especially given the director's expertise and the nature of the activities.

The Tribunal held that there was non-compliance to the notices issued by the AO, and no sufficient cause was provided by the assessee for this non-compliance, deeming it voluntary. Consequently, the order under section 271(1)(b) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without bringing the legal heir on record. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with directions to implead the legal heir and provide them with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause (illness) from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the property was purchased and paid for by the assessee's husband. The assessee, referred to as a 'Consenting Party' in the development agreement, did not receive any amount from the sale consideration. Therefore, no income accrued to the assessee, and the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the property was purchased by the assessee's husband, and the assessee was referred to as a 'Consenting Party' in the Development Agreement. Crucially, no amount from the sale consideration was received by the assessee. Therefore, no income accrued to the assessee, and the addition was deleted. The penalty proceedings were also set aside as a consequence.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16, dated 19/07/2022 and 19/04/2021, were issued after the prescribed timelines, as per the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court and decisions of the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was already decided against the assessee in their own case by a Coordinate Bench. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the issue stemmed from a technical problem of duplicate PANs. Citing the Bombay High Court in Bhavna Steel, the Tribunal held that reopening on the presumption of non-filing of returns is vitiated. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to bring the legal heirs on record, provide them with the remand report, and ensure they receive an opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided against the assessee by a Coordinate Bench in their own case for prior assessment years. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the concession made by the assessee's counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals, noting that the assessee's counsel conceded that the issue was already decided against the assessee by a Coordinate Bench in their own case for previous assessment years (2013-14 and 2017-18). Given the common issue and no objection from the Ld. DR, the appeals were accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) correctly admitted additional evidence and, since the AO failed to provide a report despite opportunities, decided the appeal based on the evidence. The cash deposits were explained as daily member deposits, and cash withdrawals could not be explained by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that while the Bombay High Court quashed a notice under section 148 on similar facts where a wrong PAN was used, it also directed the department to assess or reassess under the correct PAN. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was not entirely correct in not following the Bombay High Court judgment in totality.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 for both Assessment Years were bad in law. This was primarily due to the incorrect sanctioning authority approving the notices, violating the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the respective assessment years, and the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had not adjudicated the legal ground regarding the assessment being framed on a dead person. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication as per fact and law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee's explanation of reasonable cause was satisfactory. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order was not in accordance with the law as the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and not u/s 144. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the addition was made on an issue not covered by the reasons recorded for reopening, and no fresh notice was issued. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance despite opportunities but, considering the circumstances (father's illness) and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits, with a condition that the assessee must appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order based on the amendment to Section 251(1)(a) when the assessment order was passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B, not Section 144. The CIT(A) was required to adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the time provided to the assessee to respond to the notices was insufficient and violated principles of natural justice, as per the SOP issued by the CBDT and a High Court ruling. The order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection, emphasizing that for permanent registration under Section 12AB, the genuineness of activities must be verified, unlike provisional registration. Since the Assessee had admittedly not started activities, and merely purchasing property does not constitute charitable activity without actual use, the application was premature. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee still held valid provisional registration.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) could not have set aside the assessment order without the AO invoking Section 144, the Tribunal has the power to restore the issue for de novo assessment. Considering the assessee's claim that details were not properly considered and the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Exemption), stating that for permanent registration, the genuineness of charitable activities must be verifiable, which was not possible as no activities had started. The Tribunal emphasized that provisional registration is intended for new trusts yet to begin activities, and since the Assessee still holds valid provisional registration, no prejudice was caused by the rejection of its permanent registration application.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by admitting additional evidence (MOUs) without providing the Assessing Officer a reasonable opportunity to examine them or calling for a report. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for de-novo adjudication to ensure compliance with Rule 46A and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and substantiate its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the addition was made on an issue other than the one for which the case was reopened, and no fresh notice was issued. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.