ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2025

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply with the AO's notices, the Tribunal considered the explanation that notices were sent to a new address while the assessee resided in his joint family house. Furthermore, the death of the assessee's original counsel, who possessed the relevant documents, and the subsequent premature decision by the CIT(A)/NFAC on 19.03.2025, despite the appeal hearing being adjourned to 20.03.2025, were significant factors. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was levied on the assessee for their careless attitude, to be deposited within 30 days. The assessee was directed to respond to notices and produce documents without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(A)/NFAC's order would stand. The grounds of appeal were considered partly allowed.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 CPC's disallowance under Section 143(1) was not sustainable as it did not fall under the specified categories for adjustment. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions allowing deduction under Section 80P for interest income earned by cooperative societies.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 had a reasonable cause for the delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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 noted that it was an admitted fact that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(E), leading to the rejection of the Section 12A application and the denial of the Section 80G approval. However, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is required to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details as called upon. The CIT(E) is to decide both applications under Section 12A and 80G afresh based on the facts and law. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant and make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournments, unless for sufficient cause. The grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

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 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 noted the ex-parte orders by both authorities and the assessee's claim of being an AOP unfamiliar with tax proceedings. In the interest of justice, it restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing a final opportunity for the assessee to file a reconciliation statement and requisite details, after which the AO should decide the issue as per law.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the reassessment proceedings was invalid because it was obtained from the PCIT when the PCCIT's approval was mandatory, as more than three years had passed since the end of the assessment years. Consequently, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential assessment orders were deemed bad in law.

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 Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10DA is directory and not mandatory. Following a coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court pronouncements on similar deduction provisions, the Tribunal found that the delay in accepting the form was procedural and did not disentitle the assessee to the deduction.

Following a precedent from the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2015-16. The matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order de novo, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and direction for diligent compliance.

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 the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order based on amended Section 251(1)(a) as the assessment was not made under Section 144. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.