The Tribunal recognized the assessee’s health issues and financial weakness as valid grounds for condoning delay, following the Supreme Court’s principle favouring substantial justice. It held that repeated notices for the same enquiry cannot multiply the default. Consequently, the penalty was scaled down to a single default, offering relief of ₹40,000.
ITAT observed that NFAC neither followed the mandatory remand requirement under Section 251(1) nor complied with the speaking-order mandate of Section 250(6). Accordingly, the matter was remitted to be adjudicated strictly as per the amended law.
The Tribunal emphasized that statutory obligations under Section 250(6) cannot be bypassed even when the assessee defaults in appearance. Lack of reasoning and non-discussion of issues rendered the NFAC’s ex-parte order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that short notice and lack of opportunity violated principles of natural justice in rejecting 80G registration. The CIT(E) is directed to allow the assessee to explain the Trust’s objectives. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring fair adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands the matter after persistent non-compliance, directing the assessee to prove the source of cash payments against credit-card expenses. A cost of ₹5,000 to PMNRF is imposed as a condition for fresh examination.
Tribunal confirms that co-operative societies’ operational expenditures have business nexus with interest income; Section 57 deduction of Rs.62.57 lakh allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of corporate credit card payments. The decision emphasizes that taxpayers must be provided a final opportunity to substantiate deposits and income before any additions are finalized. This safeguards procedural fairness in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against disallowance of cash payments in a film production and real estate business. Since the assessee voluntarily offered 20% initially and later 80% of cash expenses as income, the additions were valid. The ruling emphasizes that self-conceded income cannot be contested in later appeals.
The Tribunal condoned a 345-day delay after finding the assessee’s claim of non-receipt of orders plausible. It noted that the AO never sought details for the disputed disallowances and CIT(A) failed to examine documents properly. The matter was remitted for fresh verification, ensuring fair opportunity.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court had already quashed the original assessment for violating the IBC resolution plan, the PCIT’s section 263 revision could not survive. Since a revision must rest on a valid assessment order, the entire 263 action became void. The appeals were allowed and the revision orders were cancelled.
