ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing details of notices issued or considering the assessee's reply and evidence submitted during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order based on available records.

The ITAT observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and that no email ID for sending notices was mentioned in the order. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as it was initiated after the reasonable period of four years. Additionally, since the non-resident seller had already filed their income tax return declaring capital gains and paid the applicable tax, the assessee could not be treated as a defaulter for non-deduction of TDS.

Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that the matter required proper verification and examination of records. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee's cross-objection, which merely supported the CIT(A)'s order and raised no fresh issues, was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to benefits under Sections 11 and 12 for AY 2015-16, as assessment proceedings were pending when the Section 12A registration was granted with retrospective effect. It directed the AO to exclude specific capital receipts (FDR maturity, recovery of advances/deposit, specific donations) from the total receipts, as they are not taxable income. The Tribunal emphasized that Hundi collections should also be treated as capital receipts, relying on judicial precedents, and found the reopening under Sections 147/148 invalid in such cases.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee is directed to submit all required documents, and the Ld. CIT(E) is instructed to provide another opportunity, apply principles of natural justice, and decide the Section 80G registration issue afresh.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on a lack of information rather than a conclusive finding on the merits of the application. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to produce the necessary information and evidences for proper verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had casually rejected the application without discussing the details and records submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to furnish relevant details and evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the rejection was primarily due to non-submission of necessary information, not a conclusive finding on merits. Considering the assessee's readiness to provide the details, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to furnish the required information and evidence.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, attributing it to the assessee's husband's chronic illness and her sole responsibility for his care. The delay was condoned, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, noting the assessee's argument regarding the 1st proviso to Section 201(1).

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, which denies deductions for belated ITRs, was introduced from AY 2018-19 and is prospective, thus not applicable to AY 2017-18. Consequently, the Revenue was not justified in disallowing the Section 80P deduction solely due to belated filing. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for examination of the claim of Section 80P deduction on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A))'s decision to delete the addition. It ruled that the AO relied solely on a third-party statement without further inquiry or providing cross-examination. The assessee had satisfactorily explained the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the share application money received, and the AO failed to rebut these claims with corroborative evidence, thus rendering the Section 68 addition unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay, finding the assessee's reasons (husband's prolonged illness and her dependency) sufficient and factually undisputed. It noted the assessee's claim that the property seller had already offered capital gains to tax, potentially invoking the 1st proviso to Section 201(1). Consequently, the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the late filing of Form-67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit, where the underlying tax payment in the USA was undisputed, does not constitute 'misreporting of income' as defined under Section 270A(2) and (9) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no error or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided documents detailing cash collections from members through agents and their deposit into bank accounts. However, the CIT(A) neither discussed the evidentiary value of these documents nor identified deficiencies. Considering a similar case for AY 2018-19 where such deposits were accepted, the Tribunal found a fresh verification necessary.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. Citing various High Court and ITAT precedents, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the FAA, noting that the assessee failed to provide cogent reasons or supporting evidence for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the FAA's refusal to condone the delay and subsequent dismissal of the appeals in limine.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, emphasizing that while procedural law should be interpreted liberally, inordinate delays require cogent reasons and supporting evidence. As the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation or additional material for the unexplained delays, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the dismissal of the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee merely signed the development agreement in his representative capacity as a managing partner of M/s. Uma Maheshwari Builders. Therefore, the income, if any, accrued to the firm and not to him individually, making the AO's addition unsustainable. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's contention regarding Rule 46A, as the development agreement was already before the AO. The assessee's cross-objections became infructuous and were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without applying his mind to the issues was contrary to the law and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's reliance on precedents regarding fresh deductions in reassessment was misplaced as the current case involved a statutory TDS refund linked to assessed income, not a new claim. Since the AO's order of granting the refund for excess TDS against Nil assessed income was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT was without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the delay in filing the ITR, the primary reason for the Section 80P disallowance, was condoned by the CCIT. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication of the Section 80P claim, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue, ruling them not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 and a clarifying letter. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections for the same assessment years were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of having filed detailed submissions before the CIT(A) that were not considered. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A)-NFAC, providing the assessee one more opportunity to be heard and for the appeal to be decided afresh on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue, finding them non-maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which sets a monetary limit of Rs.50 Lakhs for filing appeals. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by the Revenue as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee for the same assessment years became infructuous and were also dismissed.

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect (below Rs.50 Lakhs), in accordance with CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objections were also dismissed as having become infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue, finding them non-maintainable due to a low tax effect (below Rs. 50 Lakhs), in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. As a result, the assessee's Cross Objections became infructuous and were also dismissed.

The tribunal condoned the 11-day delay in the Revenue's appeal. It held that the business of leasing/letting/hiring properties was a main object of the assessee and the rental income was treated as 'sale of services/business income' in its audited reports. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the tribunal concluded that the rental income is 'business income', setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the disallowance of expenses was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.