ITAT Rajkot Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order, even if the order was not elaborately written. The PCIT's view that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry was not substantiated. The grounds raised by the PCIT were found to be not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is an NRI and the source of funds for investments in India was from outside India, specifically from NRE accounts and repatriated funds. The detailed trail of remittances, bank statements, and fund flow statements supported the assessee's claims. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not taxed the interest income from the NRE account, reinforcing the conclusion that the funds were not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was carried out without obtaining prior approval from the higher authority as required under Section 151 of the Act. The notice issued under Section 148 was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidences without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them or call for a remand report. This was considered a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the trust was established before 01.04.1961, making the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act not applicable. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to examine the Trust's Property Register (PTR), its objects, and other evidence to grant registration as per the Act.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263. The facts indicated that the AO had conducted inquiries, sought details from the assessee, and examined the provided documents. The PCIT's view that a "depth independent inquiry" was required amounted to a difference of opinion and not a lack of inquiry, which is not a valid ground for revision under section 263.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment by the AO was based on insufficient grounds, and the subsequent assessment order by the AO was passed after due inquiry and application of mind. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be erroneous as it directed further inquiries which amounted to 'fishing and roving inquiries' without bringing any adverse evidence on record.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a coordinate bench's decision and the Gujarat High Court's ruling. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the assessing officer was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 106 days, finding sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication on merits, observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeal before itself, noting the tax consultant's mistake. It also condoned the 232-day delay in filing before the CIT(A), finding mitigating circumstances. Recognizing that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking on merits, and to uphold natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits, while imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be convincing and constituting sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the AO and CIT(A), violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the source of investment was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited due to compulsory land acquisition. The Tribunal found that a similar addition made in the case of the assessee's brother, on the same facts, was deleted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated similarly.

The Tribunal condoned the 176-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the non-delivery of the CIT(A) order. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing the AO to consider the assessee's valuation report and, if necessary, refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, as the report was not available during the original assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A) did not discuss the case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A), leading to a violation of natural justice. However, considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the AO to provide sufficient opportunity and for the assessee to contest their stand forthwith.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It was noted that the assessee was not aware of the proceedings before the CIT(A) due to an error in forwarding the official communication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the alleged difference of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- was indeed due to the inclusion of excise duty in the turnover reported to the sales-tax (VAT) department, which was not part of the turnover as per the audited financial statements. The assessee had provided a reconciliation of sales and turnover figures, which clearly explained this difference.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented by the assessee, which included a mix-up in communication and extraordinary circumstances. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not aware of the proceedings before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to submit relevant documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit relevant documents.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the interest of justice, and admitted the appeals for adjudication on merit. The Tribunal also decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to produce relevant documents before the lower authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the case before the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the case and examine the documents.

The Tribunal noted that while the AO was wrong in disallowing the entire expenditure, the assessee had not sufficiently proved its genuineness. The CIT(A)'s decision to disallow 20% of the expenditure was upheld due to inconsistencies and lack of proper documentation. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the Assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, consistent with similar cases involving M/s National Shroff.

The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay, finding the reason of tax consultant's mistake bona fide. It noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and since the assessee was a beneficiary of M/s. National Shroff (whose case was already remitted), it set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 118 days, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard or to submit necessary details and documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh *de novo* adjudication, with directions to afford the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) erred in invoking revisionary powers under section 263. The AO had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and his view, even if different from the PCIT's, was a plausible one and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT cannot substitute his opinion for that of the AO when the AO has applied his mind.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Since the assessee's quantum appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeals were also remitted back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) did not discuss the case on merits, violating the principle of natural justice. While imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard, which constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be afforded a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee should not be penalized due to the mistake of their advocate. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had replaced the AO's addition of Rs. 2,06,26,420/- (suppressed turnover) with an addition of Rs. 3,29,95,241/- (variation in stock) but had not provided specific findings on the suppressed turnover issue. Due to the assessee's failure to submit a complete reconciliation and supporting documents, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was valid and the documents seized were not 'dumb documents'. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were valid as the seized documents were not "dumb documents" and pertained to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had partly allowed the assessee's appeal, and thus sustained the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, indicating a clear violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their non-compliance, to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principle of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard.