ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — January 2026

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 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 condoned the delay, stating that the High Court's decision to quash the notice under Section 148 rendered the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal view, considering the bonafide reasons and medical evidence provided. The matters were then remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal view, considering the bonafide reasons and medical evidence provided. The matters were then remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal view, considering the bonafide reasons and medical evidence provided. The matters were then remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal view, considering the bonafide reasons and medical evidence provided. The matters were then remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.