ITAT Rajkot Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the legal issues concerning the validity of section 153A notices for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. For other assessment years, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed as indicated in specific paragraphs (para 60 and 61, not detailed here). The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue concerning Shri Shamjibhai S. Kangad. Regarding the appeal by the Revenue in IT(SS)A No. 15/RJT/2023 concerning Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad (AY 2019-20), the Tribunal dismissed it. The reasoning for dismissing the Revenue's appeal in this specific case was that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,24,90,000/-. The CIT(A) found that the entry in the seized document reflected 'Shamjibhai' and not the assessee, and this investment was considered as an application of undisclosed business income in the hands of Shri Shamjibhai Kangad, thus avoiding duplication of income. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's trust objects were not in consonance with Section 80G(5) but allowed the assessee to modify its trust deed for the benefit of the general public. The CIT(E) was directed to examine and accept the modified trust deed and grant registration if found eligible.

The Tribunal held that additions made without incriminating material are not sustainable. It also found that an investment reflected in seized data, which was already considered as an application of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee's father, should not be added again in the assessee's hands to avoid duplication.

The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue's counsel had no objection. Therefore, the tribunal decided to treat the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as not pressed. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision regarding land improvement expenses and rejected the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the land development expenses were valid and that the Inspector's report was unreliable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 411 days, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the fact that the delay occurred due to the mistake of the tax consultant, not a deliberate act of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits but had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to examine the documents and evidence for both applications and grant approval if the assessee is eligible.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal found it proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the objects of the trust, as recorded in the trust deed and the preamble, were indeed confined to the benefit of the "Braham Kshatriya Community." The Tribunal found that this directly contravened the provisions of Section 12AB(4)(d) of the Act, which mandates that a trust established for a charitable purpose after the commencement of the Act should not apply any part of its income for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. While the assessee expressed an intention to modify its objects, the Tribunal found that at the time of the Ld. CIT(E)'s decision, the existing objects were restrictive. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(E)'s order denying registration. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to examine the documents and evidence for both applications and grant approval if the assessee is eligible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was passed ex-parte as the assessee could not appear and submit required documents due to non-service of notices.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was passed ex-parte as the assessee could not appear and submit required documents due to non-service of notices.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted for the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024". The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The assessee's counsel submitted that the Tribunal had previously quashed the PCIT's order under section 263 in related appeals. Consequently, the assessee did not wish to press these appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence and that natural justice was not followed by not providing these to the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee and the directions issued by the CIT(A). The appeals were then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for rectification of TDS mismatches.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee and the directions issued by the CIT(A). The appeals were then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for rectification of TDS mismatches.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee and the directions issued by the CIT(A). The appeals were then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for rectification of TDS mismatches.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the Assessing Officer's non-compliance. The appeals were then remitted back to the Assessing Officer with directions to allow the assessee access to the console file for rectifying TDS mismatches.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee and the directions issued by the CIT(A). The appeals were then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for rectification of TDS mismatches.

The assessee's counsel submitted that the Tribunal had previously quashed the PCIT's order under section 263 in related appeals. Consequently, the assessee did not wish to press these appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this.

The Tribunal noted that the fixed deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- was made in 2015 from GBP remittance received from the UK and was later transferred between branches. This was not a fresh remittance or investment in the current assessment year. The DRP had confused the FD number with a bank account number. The Tribunal found the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 1,094/- to be not taxable.

The Tribunal condoned the 48-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be reasonable and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee as per section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal because the condonation of delay for filing the income tax return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was granted. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the trust's objects for the benefit of a backward community should not be considered religious objects. The trust is eligible for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that if the expenditure on religious activities is within 5% of the total income, the trust is still eligible for approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the expenditure and grant approval if it falls within the permissible limit.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's business was cash-oriented. While acknowledging that the entire deposit might not be profit, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that only a profit element should be taxed. Considering the smallness of the amount and the cash nature of the business, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of 5% of the disputed amount.

The Tribunal noted that while the trust's objects are charitable, the CIT(E) found them confined to a particular family/community. However, upon reviewing the objects, the Tribunal found that most of them are for general public benefit and that the Mandir is open to all. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remit the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the trust's objects, while including some religious aspects, did not exclusively benefit a particular religious community and were not substantially or wholly religious in nature. Therefore, the trust satisfied the conditions for charitable purposes under Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to acquire jurisdiction to frame an assessment order, especially when the return filed is not accepted. Since no such notice was issued, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision of its own division bench, which held that interest received from cooperative banks is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects, while containing religious elements, were not exclusively for a particular religious community, especially considering the trust's activities for the welfare of the Scheduled Tribe community. The Tribunal also noted that the trust had received provisional approval previously.

The Tribunal held that the objects of the assessee-trust were confined to specific families and surnames, thus not for the benefit of the general public. Consequently, the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the objects of both trusts were for general public benefit, not restricted to a particular community or caste. It noted that the CIT(E) did not provide specific findings on whether income was applied for the benefit of a particular group.

The Tribunal found that the objects of both trusts were for general public benefit, not restricted to a particular community or caste. It noted that the CIT(E) did not provide specific findings on whether income was applied for the benefit of a particular group.

The Tribunal noted that while the trust's objects were charitable, they were primarily for the benefit of the Rajput Kshatriya Samaj community. However, the assessee contended that they had not yet started any activities and sought an opportunity to submit further evidence regarding their objects, activities, and expenditures. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative assured compliance and, considering the facts and interest of justice, restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit the required documents and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merit. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the lower authority.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, citing the director's limited education and reliance on an accountant. In the interest of justice, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh (de-novo) adjudication, with the assessee directed to provide all necessary documents and evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, it found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked proper consideration of the Assessing Officer's findings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the tax consultant's mistake constitutes a sufficient cause. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.

The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposit could not be treated as profit, a portion representing 'on-money' should be taxed. The addition was confirmed at 30% of the total cash deposit, amounting to Rs. 12,05,070/-.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly estimated the income at 5% of the cash deposits as a profit element, considering that cash deposits alone cannot be treated as income and the AO failed to consider cash withdrawals. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in complying with the CIT(A)'s notices and imposed a cost of Rs. 2000/-. However, to ensure justice and provide an opportunity for a fresh adjudication on merits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shifted their residence and updated their address with the department. Notices for reassessment were sent to the old address, and the assessee was unaware of the proceedings. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to these circumstances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting mitigating circumstances for the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting mitigating circumstances for the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the assessee trust as it was created before April 1, 1961. Therefore, the denial of exemption based on this section was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the issue after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, provided the trust fulfills other conditions under Section 12AB.