ITAT Surat Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance, the Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted some evidence, and the CIT(A) did not consider the merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions for claiming the deduction as Form 10CCB was filed before the processing of the ROI and before the extended due date for the audit report. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and coordinate benches of ITAT.

The Tribunal noted the assessee is a senior citizen and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in the name of a deceased assessee without bringing the legal heir on record, making the entire assessment void-ab-initio. Relying on judicial precedents, it was established that an assessment order cannot be validly framed in the name of a deceased assessee when the fact of death is known to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received substantial amounts from EPF and gratuity, which were withdrawn and deposited back into bank accounts. The Tribunal also relied on a coordinate bench decision for a similar case involving the assessee's brother where a similar addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass an order as per Section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of non-compliance. Given that the assessment order was confirmed ex-parte, the assessee deserves another opportunity to contest the case on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, specifically incorrect email communication. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's disclosure during the survey pertained to cash deposited in old demonetized notes (SBNs) totaling Rs. 99,55,500/- and was offered as additional income. The assessee's AR argued that the actual cash deposited was Rs. 90,05,500/-, but this was not verified by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices leading to the ex-parte order. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the JAO to pass a fresh assessment order, giving the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 6,18,319/- for unexplained share purchases without issuing a show-cause notice and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The Revenue did not object to setting aside the matter.

The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO and in not allowing the loss claimed by the assessee on share transactions. The CIT(A) also erred in disallowing the appeal invoking Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence before the AO due to change of address and accountant's abrupt departure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order refusing to condone the delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other documents for the loans and their repayment. Following a coordinate bench's decision and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other documents for the loans and their repayment. Following a coordinate bench's decision and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order refusing to condone the delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other documents for the loans and their repayment. Following a coordinate bench's decision and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the additions.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and evasive behavior, including a significant delay in filing the appeal. Despite this, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration due to the quantum of additions. However, the assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order refusing to condone the delay was upheld.

The assessee's mother-in-law's death was cited as a reason for non-response but was not supported by evidence. The assessee also failed to provide details regarding the cash deposits. Since the assessee did not appear despite repeated notices, the appeal was proceeded ex-parte.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 302 days in filing the appeal, noting the reasons provided by the assessee were genuine. It was observed that documents provided to the CIT(A) were not considered, and confirmations regarding unsecured loans were available. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for the assessee to submit necessary proof. The assessee needs to demonstrate that the expenses were purely charitable and did not exceed 5% of their total income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order refusing to condone the delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any justifiable reason for the inordinate delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order refusing to condone the delay was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding it was not deliberate. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was also considered to have sufficient cause due to the circumstances. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter restored to the AO for de novo assessment and penalty adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding it was not deliberate. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was also considered to have sufficient cause due to the circumstances. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter restored to the AO for de novo assessment and penalty adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional and was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 135 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of internal partner disputes and the firm being dormant as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue did not object to condoning the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the re-assessment orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without considering the assessee's adjournment request. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits with a proper opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the issue of on-money, applied his mind, and taken a considered view. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not sustained as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and the sale transaction was completed in the subsequent assessment year.

The tribunal noted that the re-assessment orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without considering the assessee's adjournment request. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits with a proper opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the 34-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the death of the assessee during the appellate proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, granting one more opportunity in the interest of substantial justice.

The tribunal noted that the re-assessment orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without considering the assessee's adjournment request. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits with a proper opportunity for hearing.

The assessee had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted the relevant form with an acknowledgment. Taking this into consideration, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the claim of deduction for home loan interest under section 24(b) and its inclusion as part of the indexed cost of improvement under section 48 do not constitute a double deduction of the same amount. The assessee is entitled to claim the remaining housing loan interest paid as an indexed cost of improvement after accounting for the deduction already claimed under section 24(b).