Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the fact that the CIT(Exemption) had granted only one opportunity to the assessee, which the assessee failed to comply with, decided to restore both issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details to his satisfaction. The assessee was also directed to submit the details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment. The CIT(Exemption) was given liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law if the assessee failed to comply. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal held that since the issue of registration under Section 12A was restored, the issue of approval under Section 80G should also be restored for fresh adjudication with similar directions. The operative direction was to restore the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration with a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It acknowledged that IDBI Bank was a PSU until assessment year 1999-2000, and employees were entitled to exemptions under Sections 10(10), 10(10A), and 10(10AA) until assessment year 2019-2020. While the CIT(A)/NFAC noted that the change in IDBI Bank's status was a significant public record, the Tribunal opined that there was a bonafide belief on the part of the assessee that he was entitled to these exemptions for assessment year 2020-21 as well, considering his past employment with a PSU. Applying Section 270A(6) of the Act, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation as bonafide for the purpose of penalty levy. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in upholding the penalty. The order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to cancel the penalty. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case are identical to the case of the assessee's brother, Shri Rahul Janardhan Bodke, for the same assessment year, where a similar addition was made. In that case, the Tribunal had restored the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with specific directions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions that the land might be rural agricultural land and that the sale consideration could be considered in the hands of Mr. Janardhan Eknath Bodke. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was silent on crucial aspects and that the assessee had not filed all requisite documents. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to give the assessee one opportunity to substantiate his case by filing requisite details. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, merely endorsing the AO's findings without independent consideration of the submissions and evidence, was correct. The Tribunal noted that the submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee before the lower authorities and placed on record required verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the impugned issues afresh after due verification of the assessee's claims, considering the submissions and evidence already on record, as well as any further submissions or evidence that may be required. The assessee was directed to comply with the AO's notices without seeking adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and submissions, deemed it fit in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to consider the issue afresh after providing the assessee with due opportunity of hearing. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary verification of the assessee's claim regarding transfers from the Over Draft Account. If the assessee's contention was found to be correct, the AO was to allow the same and amend the order accordingly. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The effective grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 84,500/- was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially accepted the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits in a show cause notice dated 28.08.2025. The AO had acknowledged that the cash deposits were linked to a bank loan and the assessee's Katha manufacturing business, and that the assessee had provided supporting documents like bank statements, loan letters, and cash flow statements. The AO had explicitly stated that no addition on account of cash deposits was proposed at that stage. However, in a subsequent show cause notice dated 24.09.2025 and the final assessment order, the AO stated that the explanation offered by the assessee was not tenable, without bringing any new contradictory material on record. The Tribunal found this inconsistency indicative of a lack of application of mind by the AO. Since the AO had accepted the assessee's explanation on the same set of facts at one point and then rejected it without justification, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 84,500/-. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the assessee's age, her lack of business income, the circumstances surrounding the service of notices (incorrect address, deceased spouse's email), and the affidavit evidence. It was held that the delay was not intentional and there existed a 'reasonable cause' for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal adopted a 'justice-oriented approach' and relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied u/s 270A for both assessment years. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee had claimed bogus deductions under Section 24 of the Act (Rs. 1,75,400/-) and under Chapter VI-A (Rs. 2,35,000/-) in his original return. The correct income was declared only after the notice u/s 148 was issued. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal stated that the CIT(A)/NFAC had provided detailed reasoning while confirming the penalty, and in the absence of any contrary material presented by the assessee to take a different view, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied u/s 270A for both assessment years. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee had claimed bogus deductions under Section 24 of the Act (Rs. 1,75,400/-) and under Chapter VI-A (Rs. 2,35,000/-) in his original return. The correct income was declared only after the notice u/s 148 was issued. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal stated that the CIT(A)/NFAC had provided detailed reasoning while confirming the penalty, and in the absence of any contrary material presented by the assessee to take a different view, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 16,97,000/- for excess stock, the Tribunal held that, following co-ordinate bench decisions, excess stock declared during a survey should be treated as regular business income rather than attracting Section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE, especially when the assessee's sole business is electrical goods trading and the stock is linked to business receipts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in treating this as regular income. However, for the unexplained investment in construction (Rs. 22,75,000/-) and investment in BC (Rs. 35,28,000/-), the Tribunal upheld the action of the AO and CIT(A) in taxing these amounts under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The reasoning was that it could not be said these investments were out of the electrical items business, as the assessee was also engaged in the business of BC. Furthermore, the assessee had not submitted any satisfactory reply before the AO or CIT(A) to substantiate the source of these investments. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared the total income including the additional income of Rs. 75 lakhs in the return filed.
The Tribunal held that considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, it was proper to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and then decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee was also directed to make its submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The addition of Rs. 3,97,37,465/- was not decided on merits.
The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal on an alternative ground raised during the hearing, held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce concrete evidence that the impugned amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the seized material referred to by the AO did not contain the assessee's name but rather that of Kamlesh Navsariwala, and that Ms. Lucy Roy Choudhary's statement did not name the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the flat was purchased in Assessment Year 2022-23. Respectfully following the decisions of coordinate benches in Ashutosh Pandurang Patil and Abhishek Shivaji Gade, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made under Section 69. Other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to absence, and therefore, the merits of the case were not considered by the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided an affidavit stating she received the plot as a gift in 2012 and sold it in 2014 for Rs.75,00,000/-, received through banking channels. She claimed the plot could not be sold at fair market value as it was sold on an 'as is where is' basis due to its location among other plots sold by her father. The assessee's counsel argued that the AO was obligated to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation, citing the Calcutta High Court judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal. The Tribunal found that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal without a decision on merits, the matter needed to be remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on all grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not deciding the issues on merits at this stage.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order rejecting the condonation of delay was not a speaking order and lacked cogent reasons. The Tribunal also agreed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had confirmed the addition on merits without properly adjudicating the case, leading to a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter back to his file. The delay in filing the appeal was directed to be condoned, and the CIT(A)/NFAC was instructed to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and make submissions without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(A)/NFAC was at liberty to pass an appropriate order. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of taxing gross business receipts instead of net commission income was implicitly left undecided as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trading in fruits and vegetables, supported by evidence in the paper book. It also noted continuous deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal held that adding the entire cash deposit under Section 69A was not justified. Accepting the assessee's alternate contention for a fair and reasonable estimate, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 6% of the total cash deposit of Rs.2,03,40,821/-, amounting to Rs.12,20,449/-. The Tribunal directed accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly partly allowed. The issue of the assessment order being ex-parte was implicitly addressed by the Tribunal's re-evaluation of the facts and evidence. The issue of taxing under the correct head of income was also implicitly addressed by restricting the addition to a profit element.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee went to the root of the matter for deciding the issue. The CIT(A)/NFAC should have admitted the additional evidence and then given a finding on the merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to admit the additional evidence and decide the issue as per fact and law, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It was noted that the assessee had produced books of account, bank statements, cash book, ledger accounts, farmer-wise details, and sub-agent details with PAN. TDS was duly deducted, and payments were made through banking channels. The assessee's books of account were audited under section 44AB and not rejected by the AO. The Tribunal also noted that similar Adat commission expenses had been debited in preceding years and accepted by the Revenue, albeit in summary assessments, and no reopening had occurred. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Walchand & Co., the Tribunal held that the reasonableness of expenditure should be adjudged from the businessman's point of view. Given the evidence presented, the compliance with TDS provisions, the acceptance of similar expenses in prior years, and the unrejected books of account, the Tribunal concluded that the Adat commission expenses could not be disallowed entirely based on presumptions and surmises. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals. It noted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had cancelled the assessee's registration based on survey findings of non-genuine and non-charitable activities, and activities not in accordance with its registered objects. However, the Tribunal found that it had previously adjudicated the cancellation order in ITA No.2814/PUN/2025 dated July 3, 2026. In that prior decision, the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the issues raised by the PCIT and held that the PCIT was not justified in cancelling the registration under Sections 12AA(3), 12AA(4), and 12AB(4). Consequently, the Tribunal had directed the restoration of the registration. Given this prior ruling, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's reliance on the cancelled registration to reject the renewal application was incorrect. The Tribunal also addressed the argument regarding violations of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), noting that the assessee had relied on decisions from the Delhi and Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal which held that such violations are not 'specified violations' under the explanation to Section 12AB(4), and thus, registration cannot be cancelled on these grounds. The Tribunal also referred to Bombay High Court judgments which indicated that violations of Section 13(1)(c) only affect exemption under Section 11 to the extent of the violation, not leading to cancellation of registration. Therefore, the Tribunal found the PCIT's orders rejecting the renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) and the approval under Section 80G to be unsustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the PCIT was directed to grant the renewal of registration and approval.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals. It noted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had cancelled the assessee's registration based on survey findings of non-genuine and non-charitable activities, and activities not in accordance with its registered objects. However, the Tribunal found that it had previously adjudicated the cancellation order in ITA No.2814/PUN/2025 dated July 3, 2026. In that prior decision, the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the issues raised by the PCIT and held that the PCIT was not justified in cancelling the registration under Sections 12AA(3), 12AA(4), and 12AB(4). Consequently, the Tribunal had directed the restoration of the registration. Given this prior ruling, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's reliance on the cancelled registration to reject the renewal application was incorrect. The Tribunal also addressed the argument regarding violations of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), noting that the assessee had relied on decisions from the Delhi and Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal which held that such violations are not 'specified violations' under the explanation to Section 12AB(4), and thus, registration cannot be cancelled on these grounds. The Tribunal also referred to Bombay High Court judgments which indicated that violations of Section 13(1)(c) only affect exemption under Section 11 to the extent of the violation, not leading to cancellation of registration. Therefore, the Tribunal found the PCIT's orders rejecting the renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) and the approval under Section 80G to be unsustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the PCIT was directed to grant the renewal of registration and approval.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G based on the observation that expenditure on religious activities exceeded 5% of total income. The assessee's counsel presented an auditor's certificate asserting that no expenses were incurred on religious activities for the relevant financial years. Considering the conflicting submissions and the auditor's certificate, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination of the details and a decision in accordance with facts and law. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised a specific ground before the CIT(A)/NFAC regarding the direction to allow the deduction of Rs. 36,30,301/- in the subsequent year (AY 2019-20) where TDS was deducted and paid. The CIT(A)/NFAC, while partly allowing the appeal on this issue, had only restricted the disallowance to Rs. 36,30,301/- but had not adjudicated the specific ground raised by the assessee concerning allowing the deduction in the subsequent year. The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions before the CIT(A)/NFAC clearly explained the issue of double disallowance. Therefore, deeming it fit in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC on the impugned issue and restored the matter back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the specific ground (Ground No. 2) raised by the assessee, after providing due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to provide full support and requisite details without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous. The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form-10B does not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered by several decisions, including that of the Co-ordinate Bench in Prof. J.P. Trivedi Memorial Trust vs. ITO. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had misdirected himself by dismissing the appeal on grounds not raised by the CPC, and by erroneously assuming Form-10B was not filed. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. SPIC Educational Foundation, which held that filing of Form 10 for accumulation beyond the due date could not disentitle the trust from exemption. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim of exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had filed the Return of Income along with the Audit Report before the due date under Section 139(1), and Form 10 was subsequently uploaded. The Tribunal cited numerous judicial precedents supporting the view that the requirement of filing Form 10/10B is directory and not fatal to the claim of exemption. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide the issue as per facts and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to make submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment, failing which the Assessing Officer was at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared gross agricultural receipts and claimed net agricultural income as exempt under Section 10(1), but the AO rejected the claim due to lack of evidence and made an addition of the gross receipts. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the AO's action. The assessee's counsel submitted that details could not be filed before the AO due to portal closure and that the CIT(A) did not consider the details properly. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that it could substantiate its case if given an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that Section 69A applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of unexplained money, and either offers no explanation or an unsatisfactory one. However, it also highlighted that the provision uses the word 'may', indicating a discretion to be exercised judicially, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the cash deposit was a gift from her late husband to herself and her two minor daughters. It considered the affidavits filed by the assessee and her daughters, along with the husband's death certificate, as having discharged the initial burden of proof regarding the identity of the donor and the nature of the gift. The Tribunal found no evidence to prove the assessee's explanation false. Therefore, it set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in B.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors, due to the non-submission of details by the assessee on the date of hearing. Since the grounds raised by the assessee remained un-adjudicated, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to substantiate their case by filing the requisite details. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue based on facts and law after the assessee makes submissions without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of the JAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, as raised in ground 3, was not explicitly decided on merits but was implicitly part of the remand as the entire case was restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC accepted additional evidence and deleted both additions without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and without providing justification for admitting the additional evidence, which is a violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, provide his justification for admitting the additional evidence by passing a speaking order, and then decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is non-deliberate. Refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice by preventing a meritorious matter from being heard. The Tribunal held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was empowered to condone the delay in filing the application for registration under the proviso inserted in Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from October 1, 2024. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the application purely on technical and procedural grounds without recording any adverse findings regarding the genuineness of the trust's activities. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's argument that the non-obtaining of prior permission from the Charity Commissioner for the loan from the trustee was a procedural lapse, not a violation of Section 12AB(1)(b)(B) of the Act, especially since the genuineness of the trust's activities was not doubted. Citing precedents from co-ordinate benches, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file. The CIT(E) was directed to condone the delay if satisfied that there was a reasonable cause and to decide the application afresh, considering the affidavit of the trustee and other submissions, after providing a due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to comply with notices without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the limited argument presented by the assessee's counsel was that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the balance credit of TDS amounting to Rs.6,57,674/-. Upon perusal of the available material, the Tribunal found that the issue of the balance TDS credit of Rs.6,57,674/- required verification by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore this limited issue to the file of the JAO. The JAO was directed to verify the assessee's claim and decide the issue of balance TDS credit in accordance with the law, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal stated that only the ground argued by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the other grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee stated that the appeal was a duplicate filing for the same assessee and assessment year. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. After verifying the records, the Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed a duplicate. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as 'withdrawn'. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was indeed a duplicate filing. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as 'withdrawn'. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues on merits were decided as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally. The judgment does not record any specific amount in dispute or any other procedural history beyond the fact of the duplicate filing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the hearing date, and the case was decided ex-parte. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had raised several grounds, including jurisdictional issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated after 01.04.2021 without following Section 148A, and the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2). The assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 2,24,300 under Section 69A, arguing it was based on unverified information and without an opportunity for cross-examination, contrary to the registered sale deed. Given the ex-parte nature of the hearing and the substantial grounds raised by the assessee concerning procedural infirmities and merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and to examine the evidence. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions or the jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were identical to a previous case, Hamal Mathadi Shramik Vikas Sanstha vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune (ITA No.1355/PUN/2026, dated 13.07.2026), in which both members of the current bench were parties. In that case, the Tribunal had directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant approval under Section 80G. The reasoning was that if the CIT(Exemption) had already verified and granted a subsequent registration (in that case, under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i)), it implied that the earlier registration was on record and verified. Therefore, rejecting the application for failure to submit a copy of the prior approval, which was presumably verified for the subsequent approval, was considered an error without due application of mind. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant approval under Section 80G. The ground raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the core issue was whether the authorities were justified in treating the sale of immovable property as an invalid transaction due to the discrepancy between the agreement date (1996) and registration date (2015). The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not participate in the AO's proceedings. However, it specifically referred to the first proviso to Section 50C(1), which states that if the date of agreement fixing consideration differs from the registration date, the stamp duty value should be considered as on the date of the agreement. Since full consideration was received in 1996, the stamp duty value as of 04.10.1996 should be considered for computing capital gains under Section 45. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-computation of capital gains in light of the proviso to Section 50C(1). Ground No. 4 was allowed for statistical purposes. Other grounds became infructuous. The penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271D were also restored to the file of the AO for disposal after the quantum addition is decided.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was without merit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted various documents during the assessment proceedings, including the bank statement, which was in the name of the assessee and his wife. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the total professional receipts as per the Profit and Loss account filed by the assessee were Rs. 9,90,649/-. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the amount of Rs. 8,85,000/- represented professional receipts. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition made by the AO and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/-. The ratio decidendi is that if cash deposits in a joint account are demonstrably out of disclosed professional receipts and are reflected in the profit and loss account, they cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, especially when the revenue fails to provide any rebuttal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding that the assessee had established a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, citing the judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed the appeal before the ITAT instead of the CIT(A), which was considered a sufficient cause for the delay before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication. Considering the peculiar facts and the lack of adjudication on merits by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law under section 250(6). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The assessee was directed to cooperate and respond promptly.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal. It noted that the primary grounds of appeal concerned the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and the merits of the addition. Respectfully following coordinate bench decisions in similar cases involving City Corporation Limited, where the addition on account of alleged on-money payment was deleted, the Tribunal found that the onus was on the AO to establish the on-money payment with documentary evidence. The Tribunal observed that no such documents or evidence were supplied to the assessee. Furthermore, statements relied upon were retracted, and a confirmation letter from City Corporation Limited stated no on-money/cash was received. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 18,56,026 made under Section 69B read with Section 115BBE. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Comp. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., which clarified that while the Assessing Officer's power to entertain claims otherwise than by a revised return might be limited, the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 are not impinged. The Tribunal also referred to its own coordinate bench decisions allowing claims made for the first time before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the assessee to furnish a revised computation of capital gains income before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to re-compute the tax liability afresh, considering the DTAA benefits and granting any refund due after verification of documents. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the core issue was whether the authorities were justified in treating the sale of immovable property as an invalid transaction due to the discrepancy between the agreement date (1996) and registration date (2015). The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not participate in the AO's proceedings. However, it specifically referred to the first proviso to Section 50C(1), which states that if the date of agreement fixing consideration differs from the registration date, the stamp duty value should be considered as on the date of the agreement. Since full consideration was received in 1996, the stamp duty value as of 04.10.1996 should be considered for computing capital gains under Section 45. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-computation of capital gains in light of the proviso to Section 50C(1). Ground No. 4 was allowed for statistical purposes. Other grounds became infructuous. The penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271D were also restored to the file of the AO for disposal after the quantum addition is decided.
The Tribunal noted that the core issue was whether the authorities were justified in treating the sale of immovable property as an invalid transaction due to the discrepancy between the agreement date (1996) and registration date (2015). The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not participate in the AO's proceedings. However, it specifically referred to the first proviso to Section 50C(1), which states that if the date of agreement fixing consideration differs from the registration date, the stamp duty value should be considered as on the date of the agreement. Since full consideration was received in 1996, the stamp duty value as of 04.10.1996 should be considered for computing capital gains under Section 45. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-computation of capital gains in light of the proviso to Section 50C(1). Ground No. 4 was allowed for statistical purposes. Other grounds became infructuous. The penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271D were also restored to the file of the AO for disposal after the quantum addition is decided.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal as they were legal and went to the root of the matter. Regarding Additional Ground No. 1, the Tribunal found that the original notice u/s 148 was issued on 17.06.2021. Following the Ashish Agarwal decision, this was deemed a notice u/s 148A(b). A show cause notice was issued on 31.05.2022, with a reply due by 15.06.2022. An order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 22.07.2022, and a fresh notice u/s 148 was issued on the same date. The assessee challenged this notice dated 22.07.2022 as being beyond the surviving time limit prescribed by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal calculated the surviving time limit based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal and found that the Revenue had only 13 days (till 28.06.2022) to issue the fresh notice u/s 148 after considering the response date. However, the notice was issued on 22.07.2022, which was 24 days beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hitesh Ramniklal Shah, which also quashed a notice issued beyond the surviving period. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 dated 22.07.2022 was barred by limitation and declared it void ab initio and bad in law. The entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed. The Tribunal allowed Additional Ground No. 1, rendering the remaining grounds infructuous. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) with regard to interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with other cooperative banks and nationalized banks is no longer res integra. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of coordinate benches in Chandraprabhu Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha vs ITO and Sharad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, observed that such interest income qualifies for deduction. The Tribunal found no material on record to take a different view. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 23,25,751/- claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal considered the arguments and the material on record. It noted that the appeal was reopened based on information regarding a Rs. 66.65 lakh credit from property sale, which was later withdrawn. The Assessing Officer made an addition due to non-response, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 993-day delay without condoning it. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay, which included the assessee's limited education, dependence on others, demise of parents, and issues with the tax consultant. Citing the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be genuine and deserving of condonation. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, the Tribunal, following principles of natural justice, restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and update her details. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application in Form 10AB for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii), which was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) on March 8, 2026, for belated filing. However, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(Exemption) had, by an order dated March 7, 2026, granted regular registration to the assessee under Section 12AB(1)(b) for AYs 2024-25 to 2033-34. In view of this earlier order granting regular registration, which implicitly recognized the assessee's charitable status, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting the Section 80G approval. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant the approval sought under Section 80G(5) in accordance with the law. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee's charitable character has been recognized by the same authority through a Section 12AB registration, a rejection of Section 80G approval on a technical ground like delay, especially when the application was filed during the subsistence of provisional approval, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 80P of the Act had already been adjudicated in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, with the Tribunal having allowed the same in those years. Copies of these prior orders were placed on record. The Revenue did not present any contrary material to support its contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld it, thereby allowing the deduction under Section 80P. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application by focusing on actual accomplishments rather than proposed activities, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Ananda Social and Educational Trust Vs CIT. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) adopted a hyper-technical approach and travelled beyond his jurisdiction by prematurely assessing the utilization of expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that activities like job fairs, Yoga Day celebrations, and marathons could be considered charitable under the 'general public utility' category as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, provided they do not involve trade or commerce. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to his file for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the assessee to provide necessary documents and evidence without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer or the First Appellate Authority, resulting in ex-parte orders and additions. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen residing abroad, and non-participation was due to reasons beyond her control. The assessee claimed the investments were from the sale of a residential house and taxes were paid. The Tribunal, considering the factual matrix and the prayer for an opportunity, decided to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice. The assessee was directed to cooperate, update her details, and appear on the appointed date without seeking adjournments unless required. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle is that in cases of non-compliance due to genuine reasons beyond the assessee's control, especially for senior citizens residing abroad, a chance to present their case should be given, even if it means setting aside the ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding his brother's illness and death. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach and set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The issues raised in the appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department, update contact details, and respond on appointed hearing dates without seeking adjournments unless necessary. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal as belated. Upon reviewing Form No. 35, it was evident that the assessee had filed the appeal on 20.01.2018. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had selected an inapplicable section in the initial filing. However, considering the facts and circumstances, and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the set-aside proceedings. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The grounds of appeal were considered for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee had made out a case for condoning the delay of 635 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the learned CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 and restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant, avoiding unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.