ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — October 2026

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 4, 2022, is invalid, and consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 is liable to be quashed. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the fact that for Assessment Year 2018-19, the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 4, 2022, which is more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year. As per Section 151(ii) of the Act, when more than three years have elapsed, the approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. In this case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT), which is not the specified authority for reopening beyond three years. The Tribunal followed the decision of its coordinate bench in Pothina Satyanarayana v. ITO, which in turn relied on the Telangana High Court's decision in Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessment Unit, ITD. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 151, introduced by the Finance Act, 2023, with effect from April 1, 2023, cannot be applied retrospectively to exclude the period of reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. Therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer, being devoid of valid assumption of jurisdiction, was quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

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.

The Tribunal held that the provision of Section 270A(6) of the Act does not provide a blanket exclusion for every addition quantified on an estimated basis; exclusions are subject to conditions. It noted that Section 270A(9)(c) expressly includes a claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence within the scope of misreporting. In this case, the disallowance stemmed from the assessee's failure to substantiate expenditure, and the fact that the AO restricted the disallowance to 10% did not change the nature of the default. Furthermore, Section 270A(8), governing under-reporting in consequence of misreporting, operates notwithstanding Section 270A(6). Therefore, the disallowance attracted Section 270A(9)(c). Regarding the alternative contention, the Tribunal found no express requirement in the Act to mention the specific clause of Section 270A(9) in the quantum assessment order. It was sufficient that the applicable charge ('under-reporting in consequence of misreporting') was identified and the facts supporting the allegation of misreporting were discernible. The AO had expressly identified the charge and recorded the assessee's failure to substantiate expenditure, aligning with Section 270A(9)(c). The Tribunal distinguished the cited Delhi High Court case, finding that the AO in the present case had clearly identified the charge and the factual basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed written submissions on 21.07.2022 in response to a notice from the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution without considering these submissions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order could not be sustained as it failed to consider the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the written submissions, the grounds of appeal, and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the appeal afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue of entertaining fresh claims at the appellate stage was addressed by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, which permitted the filing of revised returns and directed the assessing officer to consider the case on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal acknowledged the consistent view taken by various Benches of the Tribunal across the country, which held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the assessee's claim in light of these findings and allow the exemption under Section 10(10B) in accordance with law. Regarding the additional ground on leave encashment under Section 10(10AA)(i), the Tribunal admitted the ground, following the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, and set aside the issue to the AO for verification, considering the Kerala High Court's decision in Sanchar Nigam Pensioners Welfare Association v. Union of India.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee from BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue of entertaining fresh claims at the appellate stage was addressed by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, which permitted the filing of revised returns and directed the assessing officer to consider the case on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal acknowledged the consistent view taken by various Benches of the Tribunal across the country, which held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the assessee's claim in light of these findings and allow the exemption under Section 10(10B) in accordance with law. Regarding the additional ground on leave encashment under Section 10(10AA)(i), the Tribunal admitted the ground, following the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, and set aside the issue to the AO for verification, considering the Kerala High Court's decision in Sanchar Nigam Pensioners Welfare Association v. Union of India.

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 addition made by the AO towards estimated on-money receipt for sale of flats under Section 69A of the Act for Rs. 21,47,500/- for AY 2020-21 and Rs. 77,62,000/- for AY 2021-22 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not have any direct evidence to support his findings that the assessee had received on-money. The AO resorted to estimation based on a single piece of evidence from the search in Sri Y. Ramesh Chandra's case, which indicated on-money receipt of Rs. 28,02,500/- for AY 2021-22. Crucially, this entire amount was accepted and admitted by Sri Y. Venkanna Choudary, who was in charge of the project, as his income, and he also paid taxes on it. Sri Y. Venkanna Choudary explicitly stated that the assessee was unaware of these cash transactions. The Tribunal reasoned that when the person managing the project admitted the on-money as his income and stated the assessee's lack of knowledge, making additions by estimating alleged on-money without corroborative evidence is incorrect. The Ld.CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee is the legal owner was also found insufficient without evidence of the assessee's actual receipt of on-money. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO towards estimated on-money receipt for sale of flats under Section 69A of the Act for Rs. 21,47,500/- for AY 2020-21 and Rs. 77,62,000/- for AY 2021-22 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not have any direct evidence to support his findings that the assessee had received on-money. The AO resorted to estimation based on a single piece of evidence from the search in Sri Y. Ramesh Chandra's case, which indicated on-money receipt of Rs. 28,02,500/- for AY 2021-22. Crucially, this entire amount was accepted and admitted by Sri Y. Venkanna Choudary, who was in charge of the project, as his income, and he also paid taxes on it. Sri Y. Venkanna Choudary explicitly stated that the assessee was unaware of these cash transactions. The Tribunal reasoned that when the person managing the project admitted the on-money as his income and stated the assessee's lack of knowledge, making additions by estimating alleged on-money without corroborative evidence is incorrect. The Ld.CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee is the legal owner was also found insufficient without evidence of the assessee's actual receipt of on-money. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee cooperative society from a Cooperative Bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the term 'Co-operative Society' is a genus, and a 'Co-operative Bank' is a species within that genus. Therefore, a Cooperative Bank is included within the definition of 'Co-operative Society'. The Tribunal noted that Section 56(1)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary Cooperative Society bank as a Cooperative Society. Consequently, interest earned from a Cooperative Society Bank is deductible from the gross income of a cooperative society. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO, stating it dealt with Section 80P(2)(a)(i), whereas the present case concerns Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also referred to various High Court and ITAT decisions supporting this view. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned addition of Rs.30,90,045/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act was not sustainable and liable to be vacated. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed purchased the residential property for Rs.30,90,045/- through a court auction on 22/09/2016, which was relevant to AY 2017-18, not AY 2020-21 as initially believed by the AO. The AO had initiated proceedings based on a misconception that the investment was made in AY 2020-21. The Tribunal relied on the sale certificate dated 30/11/2016 and treasury challans submitted by the assessee, which corroborated the purchase date. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to vacate the addition. The issue regarding the violation of principles of natural justice and the validity of the order under Section 148A(d) was implicitly addressed by the finding that the assessment was based on a misconceived fact, leading to the vacation of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had inadvertently erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in its order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, had directed the exclusion of the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 for the purpose of computing limitation in all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Considering this, the appeal filed by the assessee on 03/01/2022 was well within the stipulated time period. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with a direction to readjudicate the appeal on its specific grounds. The issue of whether the AO was justified in levying interest under section 201(1A) was not decided on merits as the appeal was remanded.