SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach was untenable as it rejected the explanation without affording an opportunity to rebut and effectively went into the 'source of source' for an addition made under Section 69A. Consequently, the matter is restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, requiring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to be provided to the appellant.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach of making an addition solely based on information about accommodation entries, without specific findings on the appellant's submitted purchase details, was not tenable. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, ensuring the appellant receives a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing the reasonable cause for the 124-day delay in filing. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound under Section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of an appeal on merits, even ex-parte, after framing points of determination. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

the CIT(A) with a delay of 118 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay rejecting the explanation of the appellant stating that medical ground cannot be accepted because no medical certificate was produced for the delay of 124 days.4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's continuous illness claim and, considering prior chronic ill health, held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the 118-day delay despite the lack of a current medical certificate. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal of the appeal on merits, affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits in banks and treasury is attributable to its main business. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for such interest income.

the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

The Tribunal noted that a condonation petition for delayed filing of the return was pending before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential order based on the outcome of the said condonation petition.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify the defect of the inadvertently unsigned Form 10B. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated under Section 250(6) to dispose of appeals on merits, even in cases of non-prosecution or ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance.

this Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On a careful perusal of the impugned order it would reveal that the application was filed u/s.10AB seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act was rejected by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) solely on the ground that the application was filed belatedly and beyond the extended time, i.e. 20.06.2024. The proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (v) of Section 80G provide

The Tribunal observed that the rejection was solely due to belated filing, but the impugned order lacked any finding regarding the commencement date of the trust's activities. Since the filing deadline under Section 80G proviso is linked to the commencement of activities, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration to determine this crucial date.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and in violation of natural justice, as it lacked cogent reasons and incorrectly applied the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision to the appellate authority. The Tribunal held that appellate authorities are not barred from entertaining new claims. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal with a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellant.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

The CIT(A) deleted additions related to old balances and trade payables as they did not pertain to the relevant assessment year or were not loans. However, the CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 33 lakhs due to the assessee's failure to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of lenders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI HON'BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal found that the assessee had no taxable income and the Revenue failed to prove proper service of notices. It concluded that the non-filing and non-response were due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, constituting a reasonable cause. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271F was not justified and was accordingly deleted.

the first appellate authority constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate these crucial grounds, including the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 4/2002, thereby violating natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, with directions to consider all submissions and the said circular.

SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI HON'BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) examined the assessee's eligibility for deduction on merits, and disallowances were made solely due to non-submission of documents without proper examination. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit relevant documents and allowing the AO to verify the claims, including the correct section of deduction and eligibility under 80P(2)(a)(i), on merits.