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wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.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.

The tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons in the affidavit to be sufficient cause. On merits, the tribunal noted the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the assessing officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to plead their case. Consequently, the Tribunal found a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the new monetary limits set by Circular No. 09/2024 as the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Revenue was given liberty to seek recall if the tax effect was actually higher or if the appeal was otherwise maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) order was ex-parte and violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard and by not discussing the case on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal decided not to comment on the merits of the case and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that Section 80A(5) and 80AC of the Income Tax Act do not necessarily bar a deduction under Section 80P if a return is not filed, unlike other Chapter VI-A deductions. Following precedent, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that merely treating the income as per the assessee's own understanding, which was reflected in the audited books of accounts, cannot be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under section 234E for periods before June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the enabling provision (section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions from Madras, Karnataka, and Kerala, and its own coordinate benches.

The Tribunal, relying on High Court decisions from Madras, Karnataka, and Kerala, and a Coordinate Bench decision, held that the enabling provision for levying fee under Section 234E, i.e., Section 200A(1)(c), came into effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees levied prior to this date were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enables such levy, was introduced only from June 1, 2015. This was supported by decisions of various High Courts and Coordinate Benches.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the deletion of the addition was based on a remand report from the Assessing Officer himself, which found the assessee's claim to be in order. Therefore, no interference was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not validly served as it was issued to an incorrect address after the assessee's retirement, and service by affixture was also improper. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were invalid and made in violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is beyond the prescribed time limit, especially considering the relaxation provisions (TOLA) and amendments to sections 147-151 by the Finance Act, 2021. Relying on precedents, the notice was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.07.2022, was issued beyond the period of limitation, rendering it invalid. Consequently, all assessment proceedings arising from this invalid notice were vitiated.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the revenue representative did not object. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.