The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, noting that the reasons for delay were bona fide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal found that opportunities for proper adjudication were denied and therefore set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, while imposing costs on the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Observing that the assessees were not granted sufficient opportunities to present their cases before the CIT(Exemption) and that the Ld. DR did not object to granting further opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals. For all the appeals, the Tribunal noted that the assessees had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper adjudication, while imposing a cost on one assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the return after verifying submissions and explaining cash transactions. While acknowledging the issue of delayed filing of return, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's proposal to file a condonation of delay application before the CIT under Section 119(2)(b). The Revenue representative agreed to this proposal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons recorded were factually incorrect, vague, and lacked an independent application of mind by the AO. The information used for reopening did not directly pertain to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal, noting the bonafide reasons. For the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessees were not given adequate opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard. This was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order without commenting on the merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to mitigating circumstances. Finding the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in the interest of justice and principles of natural justice.

Since the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Observing a violation of the principle of natural justice because the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.