Loading ITAT cases…
679 tribunal orders from the Visakhapatnam bench in 2026.
Showing 40 of 679 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal condoned the 223-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient force in the assessee's contentions regarding his father's illness and post-COVID challenges. On merits, the Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the assessee had not produced any evidence relating to agricultural income, such as purchase of fertilizers, pesticides, sale bills, or details of gross and net agricultural income. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that evidence of primary agricultural operations is essential and that mere ownership of land is insufficient. The Tribunal also found merit in the revenue's argument that the deposit during the demonetization period, without staggered sales, was suspicious. Consequently, the Tribunal afforded the assessee one more opportunity to furnish all evidence relating to agricultural income and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to pass an order after considering the evidence and providing an effective opportunity to the assessee, keeping in mind various judicial precedents on agricultural income. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was levied on the assessee for the significant delay and lack of evidence before lower authorities.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, following the ratio in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal, 343 CTR 39. This decision was based on the fact that the notices from the CIT(A) were sent to a different email account than the one designated by the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the issues were not discussed on merits by the lower authorities because the appellant had not furnished any information. Since the assessment order and the appellate order did not delve into the merits, it was not possible for the ITAT to adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to argue the case before the AO, who was directed to consider all arguments afresh and pass an order. However, due to the appellant's non-compliance with notices from the AO/CIT(A), a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Visakhapatnam District Legal Services Authority within one month.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Revenue under Section 148 of the Act is invalid. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of ITO Vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, which followed the principles laid down in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal noted that the Solicitor General had conceded before the Supreme Court that assessments pertaining to AY 2015-16, where notices were issued/proposed beyond the prescribed time limit, would be barred by time. Consequently, all consequent additions made by the AO were deemed void-ab-initio. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the assessee's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that both orders from the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to substantiate his claim properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 775/VIZ/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty proceedings (ITA Nos. 776/VIZ/2026 and 777/VIZ/2026), since the quantum appeal has been set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot independently stand. Therefore, these appeals are also set aside to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders in the penalty proceedings considering the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that both orders from the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to substantiate his claim properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 775/VIZ/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty proceedings (ITA Nos. 776/VIZ/2026 and 777/VIZ/2026), since the quantum appeal has been set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot independently stand. Therefore, these appeals are also set aside to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders in the penalty proceedings considering the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had failed to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities on consecutive dates. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to comply with the notices issued during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee, payable to the "AP State Legal Services Authority", with a copy to be produced before the AO as proof of deposit. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application in Form No. 10AB on October 5, 2025, seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a public charitable trust. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, dated June 25, 2026, which dismissed the application for renewal of registration. The grounds raised by the assessee primarily concern the procedural fairness and substantive justification for the denial of renewal. The assessee argued that the dismissal was without proper reasons, lacked application of mind, and was based on technicalities that should have been condoned, especially considering the charitable nature of its activities. The assessee also raised issues of jurisdiction, timeliness of the order, and violation of natural justice. The judgment does not record the revenue's arguments. Since the specific findings and reasoning of the Tribunal on each ground are not detailed in the provided text, a complete analysis of the 'held' section cannot be provided. However, the core of the dispute revolves around the CIT(E)'s decision to dismiss the renewal application and the assessee's arguments against it.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sold two properties and received cash components, which were deposited in the bank. The AO had doubted the explanation for the cash deposits, particularly the duration it was held, leading to the addition of Rs. 10,41,000/- under Section 69A. Considering the assessee's alternative submission to offer Rs. 5,00,000/- as income to buy mental peace, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply normal rates of income tax on this disclosed income of Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of Section 115BBE. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed. The issue regarding the refusal to admit additional evidence was not expressly decided.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue concerning an additional ground and had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal cited its own decision in Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026) as the basis for this decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a Coordinate Bench has set a precedent for dealing with additional grounds and remanding the issue, the Tribunal should follow the same approach to ensure consistency and fairness, provided the assessee is granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue concerning an additional ground and had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal cited its own decision in Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026) as the basis for this decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a Coordinate Bench has set a precedent for dealing with additional grounds and remanding the issue, the Tribunal should follow the same approach to ensure consistency and fairness, provided the assessee is granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that both orders from the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to substantiate his claim properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 775/VIZ/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty proceedings (ITA Nos. 776/VIZ/2026 and 777/VIZ/2026), since the quantum appeal has been set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot independently stand. Therefore, these appeals are also set aside to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders in the penalty proceedings considering the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue concerning an additional ground and had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal cited its own decision in Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026) as the basis for this decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a Coordinate Bench has set a precedent for dealing with additional grounds and remanding the issue, the Tribunal should follow the same approach to ensure consistency and fairness, provided the assessee is granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, observed that both orders below were passed ex-parte due to non-prosecution by the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issues. The assessee was directed to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to comply with notices issued by the AO during remand proceedings. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee, payable to the AP State Legal Services Authority, with proof to be submitted to the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits of the case. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the issue on its merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity and issuing notice. The assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings and file supporting documents. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited with the AP State Legal Services Authority, with a copy to be produced before the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the Section 148 notice dated 31.03.2021 was prima facie not issued in the assessee's name but in the name of another assessee. This legal issue was not examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that a valid notice is a prerequisite for assessment. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the validity of the notice and whether it was properly served. The AO was directed to pass an order after giving appropriate notice to the assessee and allowing the assessee to participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal also stated that if the assessee does not succeed on the legal grounds or other issues during the remand proceedings, the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) shall remain undisturbed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, though bearing the date 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021, based on email communication and the income-tax portal records. The Tribunal distinguished between signing a notice and issuing it, stating that the actual date of electronic issuance governs. Respectfully following the decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the notice was issued on 01.04.2021 without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 148A. Consequently, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 14.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, was quashed. As the assessment was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds were left undecided. The appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were allowed on identical reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, though bearing the date 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021, based on email communication and the income-tax portal records. The Tribunal distinguished between signing a notice and issuing it, stating that the actual date of electronic issuance governs. Respectfully following the decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the notice was issued on 01.04.2021 without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 148A. Consequently, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 14.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, was quashed. As the assessment was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds were left undecided. The appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were allowed on identical reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, though bearing the date 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021, based on email communication and the income-tax portal records. The Tribunal distinguished between signing a notice and issuing it, stating that the actual date of electronic issuance governs. Respectfully following the decision in Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the notice was issued on 01.04.2021 without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 148A. Consequently, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction. The assessment order dated 14.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, was quashed. As the assessment was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds were left undecided. The appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were allowed on identical reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the impugned penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had voluntarily filed its original return of income under Section 139(1) on 31.10.2019, declaring an income of Rs. 45,83,888/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) and accepted. Even during reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, the assessee declared the same income, which was ultimately accepted by the AO in the reassessment order under Section 147 without any additions or disallowances. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had failed to appreciate this fundamental fact, which was specifically brought to their notice by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that Section 270A(2)(a) requires a comparison to determine under-reporting, and in this case, there was no difference between the income originally returned and the income assessed. Therefore, the very basis for imposing the penalty was unsustainable. The Tribunal strongly deprecated the manner in which the AO and CIT(A) dealt with the proceedings, finding their actions unsatisfactory and lacking in proper application of mind and statutory provisions. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 7,15,086/-.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach while considering the application for condonation of delay, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter deserved to be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The explanation regarding the inability of the regular tax consultant and the subsequent engagement of another professional warranted examination. The dismissal of the appeal solely on limitation without examining the grounds on merits would deprive the assessee of an opportunity for adjudication. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the grounds on merits. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition made by the AO under Section 69A.