The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing, stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's submission that non-prosecution was due to a bona fide reason and that the assessee was willing to make an effective representation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, as per Section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee's claim that notices were not received due to an address change was not accepted as a valid reason for the significant delay.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory procedure under section 148A was not followed, which vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Additionally, the seized material cited by the AO was found to be illegible and did not directly implicate the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order were passed on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 was dispatched/sent to the assessee on 01.04.2021, it should be considered as issued on that date. As the notice was issued after the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, the mandatory procedure under section 148A was required to be followed. Failure to do so renders the assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) needed to be set aside as both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the cases of other co-owners, which are pending, should be heard together with the present case to maintain consistency. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had booked a property with Sahara and sold the booking right to Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, with Shri Mukesh Joshi acting as a broker. The assessee's initial representation that Shri Mukesh Joshi was the buyer was due to a misunderstanding. New evidence, including a confirmatory certificate from Sahara, supported this corrected version.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Both the AO and the CIT(A) found that the assessee did not provide adequate evidence regarding the construction of a residential house, such as approvals, plans, or proof of payment, and that the asset sold (land) was not a residential house, which is a prerequisite for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 46,000/- was explained as a mere re-deposit from a prior cash withdrawal to reduce overdraft interest. For the remaining Rs. 2,08,000/-, the Tribunal found the explanation plausible given the cash-intensive nature of the stamp vending business and the substantial turnover. The Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, and the amount was considered reasonable within the business context.

The Tribunal held that the appeal memo was seriously defective and non-maintainable as it was not signed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal could not be adjudicated on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unsecured loans was not justified as the loans were from previous years and not utilized for deposits in the current year, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent. Regarding the addition for unexplained cash deposits, both parties agreed to a remand for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed with an inordinate delay of over two to three years without any sufficient cause or condonation application. The assessee failed to provide justifiable reasons or evidence for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeals in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a small trader exempted from maintaining books of account and opting for presumptive taxation, had provided supporting documents for the debtor recoveries. While the AO's addition was not fully sustainable, to bring the litigation to an end, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's proposal to tax 8% of the disputed amount as business income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's claim of filing an online response and to decide the issue of delay with a fresh perspective, considering substantial justice over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the assessee was not provided with the AO's report which was relied upon for passing the order.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on the statements of sellers which were not provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination granted, violating principles of natural justice. However, the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings was also noted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was due to a bona fide misunderstanding regarding the validity of the AO's order. The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under section 11/12 solely on account of a procedural lapse in filing the audit report (Form 10B) without audited accounts was unjustified, as the law considers this requirement directory.