ITAT Surat Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal found that the non-furnishing of details was not intentional and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case and furnish the necessary documents, deciding the applications afresh within 90 days.

The Tribunal noted that the principle of natural justice was not adhered to, as the CIT(E) had issued only one notice in one of the cases and proceeded to decide the matter without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Similar reasoning was applied to the other appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had erred by not granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the reasons provided by the assessee in Form No.35 regarding the non-availability of the assessment order on the e-proceeding portal, which caused the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the reasons for condonation of delay and then decide the appeal on merits if satisfied with the cause.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the non-presentation of the assessee's case was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, to serve the interests of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to both parties to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if the DTVSV,24 application is not settled.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence for the cash deposits and loan repayments, which were duly considered by the CIT(A). The AO's additions were based on assumption. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously set aside the CIT(A)'s order because it was passed ex parte. Since the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, there was no basis to confirm the impugned penalty order. The Tribunal indicated that if the AO's assessment order is upheld upon fresh adjudication, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could be initiated.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the cash deposit was not adequately supported by evidence, particularly given the delayed filing of returns and the improbability of holding such large cash amounts. However, considering the facts, 50% of the cash in hand from the previous assessment year was allowed as a reasonable source.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities. Both the AO and the CIT(A) passed orders without considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal observed that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to as the assessee was not granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E) had issued only one notice, and the applications were rejected without a thorough examination of the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was aware of the provisional approvals and the complexity of recent amendments led to inadvertent mistakes in form selection. The assessees' intent was clear from the application contents. Therefore, rejecting applications solely based on such technical errors was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was aware of the provisional approvals and the complexity of recent amendments led to inadvertent mistakes in form selection. The assessees' intent was clear from the application contents. Therefore, rejecting applications solely based on such technical errors was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was aware of the provisional approvals and the complexity of recent amendments led to inadvertent mistakes in form selection. The assessees' intent was clear from the application contents. Therefore, rejecting applications solely based on such technical errors was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was aware of the provisional approvals and the complexity of recent amendments led to inadvertent mistakes in form selection. The assessees' intent was clear from the application contents. Therefore, rejecting applications solely based on such technical errors was not justified.

The Tribunal observed that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to as the assessee was not granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E) had issued only one notice, and the applications were rejected without a thorough examination of the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the principle of natural justice was not adhered to, as the CIT(E) had issued only one notice in one of the cases and proceeded to decide the matter without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Similar reasoning was applied to the other appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the principle of natural justice was not adhered to, as the CIT(E) had issued only one notice in one of the cases and proceeded to decide the matter without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Similar reasoning was applied to the other appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal, as the Revenue did not object. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of passing the assessment order on the same day the notice under Section 143(2) was issued, without giving the assessee an opportunity to object to the reopening or provide explanations, was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that substantial tax liability was fastened on the assessee without a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits as being from prior cash withdrawals from its bank accounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the application for registration under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because one of the objects of the trust contains the word "religious." The CIT(E) rejected the application without proper inquiry into the trust's actual expenditure on religious purposes, which was against the principles of natural justice.

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate corroborative evidence, such as buyer's details or confirmation, to substantiate the claim of receiving the advance in the subject assessment year. The sale deed was executed in a later assessment year, and the onus to prove the source of the deposit was on the assessee, which was not discharged.

The CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the TCS provisions due to staff illness and belated payment of TCS. The decisions cited by the CIT(A) were related to concealment of income and not applicable to TCS provisions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's order was time-barred.

The Tribunal held that for a trust to qualify for approval under section 80G(5), it must be established for a charitable purpose. Composite trusts (religious and charitable) are not eligible if religious activities or purposes constitute a substantial part. The assessee incurred religious expenditure of 7.95% of its total income, which contravened section 80G(5B) of the Act, as it exceeded the 5% threshold. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s decision to reject the application was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing to the AO before passing the appellate order, especially when additional evidence was submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings but also acknowledged the procedural lapse by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, noting the assessee's claim of illiteracy and issues with the consultant. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while delay in filing Form 10-IE is a procedural lapse, the assessee's return and Form 10-IE were filed late, making the new tax regime option invalid as per Section 115BAC(5). However, the Tribunal agreed that the assessee should be allowed deductions under the old tax regime.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis cannot be the basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Various High Courts and ITAT benches have held that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54F, an agreement to sell with possession can be considered a transfer, especially when the entire sale consideration is paid and possession is handed over. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kishorbhai Harjibhai Patel vs. ITO.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis cannot be the basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Various High Courts and ITAT benches have held that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis cannot be the basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Various High Courts and ITAT benches have held that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on the difference between the original and revised returns, and since the revised return substitutes the original, there was no basis for the addition. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) did not specify the exact limb of Section 270A(2) under which the penalty was levied, making the imposition unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules by admitting additional evidence without proper procedure, including not providing the AO an opportunity to refute it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision following the correct procedure.

The Tribunal acknowledged that it was the assessee's first year of business and that he had not maintained proper books of accounts or filed returns. However, considering the subsequent years where the assessee regularly filed returns and declared a 2% net profit, and in the interest of justice, the net profit rate was restricted to 5% for the impugned assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules by admitting additional evidence without proper procedure, including not providing the AO an opportunity to refute it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision following the correct procedure.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim of being a cash-based vendor of milk and vegetables was not adequately substantiated with documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal also observed that the entire cash deposits cannot be added as undisclosed income without considering withdrawals made from the same account, unless the department proves otherwise. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the submissions and details provided by the assessee, including cash books and ITRs for earlier years, when deciding the appeal. The CIT(A)'s dismissal was considered summary and lacked specific reasons for rejecting the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the cash withdrawals, allegedly made by his son, were indeed available as cash on hand for the deposit. However, the Tribunal directed that the addition should be taxed at the normal rate of tax and not under Section 115BBE, as its amended provisions are not retrospective.

The Income-tax Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn as per their application. The tribunal accepted the assessee's submission.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to both parties to seek restoration if the DTVSV scheme settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural defect and not a mandatory condition for denying exemption under Section 11. Relying on various High Court and ITAT decisions, it was observed that exemption should not be denied solely on account of late filing of the audit report, especially when it was filed before the appellate authorities.

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, noting the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents for bank credits and cash deposits, and his non-cooperation. However, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restricted the addition to 0.75% of the total transaction value.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was non-cooperative, the notices from the CIT(A) were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, contrary to what was provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice require another opportunity for the assessee to be heard.