SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to condone the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds and that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic should be excluded for limitation purposes as per Supreme Court directives. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments instead of making submissions. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The ITAT found that it was a clear case of non-capturing figures due to a technical glitch and that the assessee had indeed incurred charitable expenditure. The appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication to verify the claim of expenses for charitable purposes and then decide on the eligibility for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening under Section 151 was mechanical and not in accordance with law, as established by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by providing only four days for compliance. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) provided only four days for compliance with a show cause notice, which was insufficient. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The ITAT took judicial notice of the Supreme Court's orders regarding the extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 and found the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient. It condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding bad and doubtful debts and other provisions.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the staff member's illness. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding bad and doubtful debts and other provisions.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the tax effect in all three appeals was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as admitted by both parties. Consequently, in adherence to CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the tax effect in all three appeals was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as admitted by both parties. Consequently, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the tax effect in all three appeals was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as admitted by both parties. Consequently, in adherence to CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, the tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. It restored both matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and procedural law is subservient to justice. It restored both matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments and CBDT circulars, found ambiguity in the time limits for filing applications, especially for existing trusts. It held that the 'within six months of commencement of its activities' clause applies to newly formed trusts and not to existing ones, and condoned the delay in filing the application.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, found that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications without providing an opportunity of hearing and by misinterpreting the time limit for existing trusts. It held that the 'within six months of commencement of its activities' clause applies to newly formed trusts, not existing ones, and condoned the delay in filing.

SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

The ITAT found that the cash deposits were primarily from cash withdrawals, and the difference between withdrawals, deposits, and household expenses supported the assessee's claim of money lending. Therefore, the opening cash balance could not be treated as undisclosed income for the current year, and the addition was deleted.