ITAT Surat Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was not sustainable due to the absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Relying on various judicial pronouncements, it was stated that this defect cannot be cured under section 292BB of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to both parties to apply for restoration if the DVSV-2024 settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and allowed it. The appeal was dismissed as 'withdrawn'. Both parties were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if the DTVSV-24 settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal observed that the grounds of appeal were similar to those in previous cases (ITA Nos. 1193 to 1203/Srt/2024), which were restored back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, these appeals were also restored back to the CIT(E) with similar directions.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions on similar cases, held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without due process and in treating them as non-maintainable or premature. All applications were restored back to the file of the CIT(E) for *de novo* consideration, with directions to grant a fair hearing and consider registration/approval from the date of application, and to pass orders in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the objects of the association were for the overall development of students in the field of Science, Engineering, and Technology, as well as for financial assistance to poor and needy students. The Tribunal also considered the timing of the application for 80G registration and recent circulars extending the deadline. It was decided to examine the application on its merits.

The Tribunal noted that the objects of the association were for the overall development of students in Science, Engineering, and Technology, and for the financial assistance to poor and needy students, thus benefiting a cross-section of society. Regarding the 80G application, the Tribunal considered recent CBDT circulars extending the time limit for filing such applications and a relevant ITAT decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) observing that the assessment order was not served on the assessee and that the assessee was interested in contesting the matter. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's detention in Nepal and the negligence of the consultant. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal, following consistent previous decisions, restored all appeals back to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the applications de novo, provide a reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessees, and pass orders in accordance with law, including allowing registration/approval from the date of application.

Following its own precedents on similar grounds, the Tribunal remanded all the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh ('de novo') consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessees, allow them to submit further information, and consider the applications for registration/approval from their respective application dates.

The Tribunal, relying on its consistent decisions in similar earlier cases (ITAs No.1193 to 1203/Srt/2024), held that the applications were wrongly rejected as non-maintainable or premature. It directed the CIT(E) to restore the applications for de novo consideration, grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide on allowing registration/approval from the date of respective applications in accordance with law.

The Tribunal, following earlier decisions, held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without considering them on merits or providing adequate opportunity of being heard. All applications were remanded back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, with directions to provide a fair hearing and decide according to law.

Following consistent prior decisions, the Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications de novo, provide a fair opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions, and pass orders in accordance with the law, allowing registration/approval from the date of respective application.

The Tribunal noted that the issues were covered by its previous decisions. It, therefore, restored all the appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for *de novo* consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, consider all submissions, and pass orders in accordance with the law, allowing registration/approval from the date of application.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions and principles of consistency, found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications as non-maintainable and in not affording a proper hearing. It remanded all applications back to the CIT(E) for *de novo* consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow further submissions.

The Tribunal, following its consistent decisions in similar cases, restored all the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions from the assessees, and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, including considering registration/approval from the date of respective applications.

The Tribunal, following its consistent previous decisions on similar matters, restored all appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions, and pass orders in accordance with law, considering the applications from their respective filing dates.

The Tribunal found that the issues were identical to previously decided cases where similar applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications de novo, providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees, and to pass orders in accordance with law, considering the registration/approval from the date of the original application.

The Tribunal, following consistent previous decisions, determined that the applications were improperly rejected on procedural grounds. It restored all appeals back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees and to pass orders in accordance with law.

The Tribunal, relying on its consistent decisions in similar appeals, found that the applications were improperly rejected. It remanded all applications back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with law, effective from the date of respective applications.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal agreed to treat the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found the DVO's estimated FMV of Rs.26/- per sq. mt. as on 01.04.1981 to be on the lower side, considering that the average of comparable instances in DVO's own report was above Rs.33/- per sq. mt. Therefore, the AO is directed to adopt Rs.60.00/- per square meter as the FMV for capital gains computation. Additionally, the AO is instructed to allow the deduction under section 54 after verifying facts and requisite conditions, providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, relying on consistent decisions of its bench and jurisdictional High Court judgments, held that interest and dividend income earned by primary co-operative societies from other co-operative banks are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowed additions, finding the issue squarely covered by precedents.

The Tribunal, following its consistent previous decisions in similar cases, restored all applications to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, allow further submissions, and pass orders in accordance with law, treating the applications as valid from their original filing date.

The Tribunal, relying on its consistent past decisions, determined that the CIT(Exemption) had erred by rejecting the applications without a proper hearing and by misinterpreting the law regarding maintainability. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded all cases back to the CIT(E) for a de novo consideration, with directions to provide a fair opportunity of hearing and decide the applications on merits, granting registration/approval from the date of application.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without issuing a show cause notice or seeking an explanation, which violates principles of natural justice. The delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, and the cause of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the additional grounds related to reopening under sections 147/148 were a mixed question of fact and law, and although not raised before lower authorities, were allowed for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. For the addition under section 50C, the Tribunal directed the AO to take an average of the valuation reports from the DVO and compute capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the DTVSVS, 2024, and submitted relevant documentation. The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the appeals to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the submitted documents. Given no objection from the revenue and the assessee's intent to withdraw, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.

The assessee's Authorized Representative submitted letters for withdrawal of appeals. The Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the materials. The Senior Departmental Representative had no objection if the appeals were withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the appeals to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed passed a cryptic order without proper inquiry or application of mind, making it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, regarding the TDS disallowance, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of TDS deductions or filings, and the threshold limits for TDS under Section 194C might not be attracted for all daily wage and labour charges. The Tribunal also upheld the PCIT's view on the property sale issue, stating the permissible variation was 5% for the subject year, not 10%.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, and the principle of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It was also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without issuing a notice under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the submitted documents. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct with statutory notices but also observed that the CIT(A) passed the order on the same day the hearing was scheduled, without waiting for the assessee's reply. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the appeal as "withdrawn". It granted liberty to both parties to approach the Tribunal via a Miscellaneous Application for restoration or further directions if the DTVSV-2024 application is not finally settled. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request and dismissed the appeal as "withdrawn." It granted liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal via a Miscellaneous Application if the DTVSV-24 settlement fails for any reason, directing the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was largely non-cooperative with notices from the AO and CIT(A). However, it also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without waiting for the assessee's reply on the date of hearing. Therefore, for most appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to cost.

The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the available materials, including Form No. 2. The Revenue's DR had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation with notices from both the AO and CIT(A). However, it also observed that the CIT(A) passed the order without waiting for the assessee's reply on the hearing date. The Tribunal decided to give another opportunity to the assessee, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it was not deliberate. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had decided the matter ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee with two notices. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and documents, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(E) decided the matter ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that for the main assessment appeals and some penalty appeals, the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without giving reasonable opportunity. Consequently, these matters were remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment and adjudication de novo, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/-. However, a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for AY 2012-13 was upheld, and a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for AY 2013-14 was partly allowed by reducing its quantum.

The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the submitted documents, including Form No.2. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation with statutory notices from the AO and CIT(A). However, it found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without waiting for the assessee's reply on the hearing date. Therefore, to meet the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was negligent and non-cooperative throughout the proceedings. However, it was observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without waiting for the assessee's reply on the last date of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the expenditure incurred for religious activities in the last three financial years as required by Rule 11AA(2)(g). The CIT(E) also failed to issue a show cause notice before travelling beyond the prescribed period for examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting and had shown the duty drawback as income in its profit and loss account. Since the duty drawback was not yet received, it should have been treated as receivable. However, there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.