ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — January 2026
10 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) subsequently granted regular registration to the assessee, which was also applicable for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the issue of allowability of exemption under Section 11 needed reconsideration in light of this subsequent development.
The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the validity of notices issued under Section 148 without following the National Faceless Assessment Scheme has been consistently decided by various High Courts, including the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Centre, rendering them invalid. The Tribunal followed the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and other High Courts that held such notices to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order nowhere mentioned that the registration u/s 12AB was cancelled. The CIT(A) proceeded under the wrong presumption that the registration was cancelled, which was incorrect as no such cancellation order was available. The argument of the appellant's AR was found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal solely due to non-compliance of hearing notices without adjudicating on the merits, especially when grounds of appeal are raised on merits. The medical treatment of the office bearer was considered a sufficient reason for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised. The CIT(A) should have considered the affidavit filed by the assessee and potentially called for a remand report.
The Tribunal condoned the 107-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the High Court's interim stay and subsequent quashing of the Section 148 notices. It held that once the High Court set aside the Section 148 notice, the reassessment order by the Assessing Officer and the consequential order by the CIT(A) became infructuous and non-est, as the foundational notice was invalidated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals purely on technical grounds without condoning the delay, especially when a liberal view is warranted in such cases. The delay of 257 days was condoned subject to a cost of Rs. 8000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal, taking a liberal view and emphasizing that substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities, condoned the delay of 257 days in filing all four appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This condonation was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 8,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal, taking a liberal view and citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst. Katiji, condoned the delays in all four appeals, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, imposing a cost of Rs. 8000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay, especially when substantial justice is at stake, rather than dismissing the appeals on technical grounds.
