ITAT Agra Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee advanced a sum to the Aartia, who then purchased and sold goods on the assessee's behalf. The assessee neither took delivery nor sold goods, and no consideration was exchanged with the Aartia. The net surplus of Rs. 3.81 Lacs was disclosed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment jurisdiction was defective as the addition made was not on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. The assessment was quashed due to lack of valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a defective reason, without independent application of mind by the AO, and that the addition made was not on the grounds for which the case was reopened. The assessment order, therefore, lacked valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a defective reason, without independent application of mind by the AO, and that the addition made was not on the grounds for which the case was reopened. The assessment order, therefore, lacked valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a defective reason, without independent application of mind by the AO, and that the addition made was not on the grounds for which the case was reopened. The assessment order, therefore, lacked valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed written submissions and documentary evidence during lower proceedings, contrary to the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal deemed it fit to provide another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that the difference in sundry creditors arose due to opening balances, which could not be added under Section 68 for the current year. Furthermore, the assessee offered the remaining difference to tax in subsequent years under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a defective reason, without independent application of mind by the AO, and that the addition made was not on the grounds for which the case was reopened. The assessment order, therefore, lacked valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a defective reason, without independent application of mind by the AO, and that the addition made was not on the grounds for which the case was reopened. The assessment order, therefore, lacked valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that for AY 2011-12, the reopening was based on cash deposits, and the assessee was a non-filer. The AO and CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee's argument regarding the wrong premise of reopening was not accepted at this stage as the assessee remained non-compliant before lower authorities. For AY 2012-13, the facts and issues were similar.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report supported the assessee's case. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a defective reason, without independent application of mind by the AO, and that the addition made was not on the grounds for which the case was reopened. The assessment order, therefore, lacked valid reassessment jurisdiction.

The Tribunal accepted that the deposits were partially sourced from agricultural income, considering the assessee's land holdings. However, the addition was restricted to Rs.1 Lac, with the remaining deleted. The addition was to be taxed at the normal rate.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report supported the assessee's case. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The tribunal held that the deletion of addition of unexplained payments was justified as the assessee provided satisfactory confirmation letters during remand proceedings. Similarly, the provision of expenses was considered an ascertained liability paid subsequently. The disallowance under section 43B concerning sales tax and VAT was also deleted as it was either already taxed or not charged to the P&L account.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sourced from the sale of goods which had already been offered to tax. Adding these amounts again would constitute impermissible double addition, making the impugned addition unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the addition for advances was impermissible double addition as sales turnover was not disturbed and stock had moved out. The additions for alleged undisclosed sales were deleted as they were based on statistical inference without concrete enquiry or corroborative evidence for perishable commodities.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's claim that the deposits were sourced from past savings and agricultural income from family members, supported by affidavits. While confirming additions to the extent of Rs. 5 Lacs, the Tribunal deleted the remaining addition and directed re-computation of interest.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable in law as it sought to make fishing and roving enquiries without concrete findings of the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The deposits were from customers and not sundry creditors, and no expenditure was claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The addition of Rs. 8.50 Lacs on account of unexplained cash credit (unsecured loans) was confirmed as the assessee failed to prove its genuineness. For the addition of Rs. 5 Lacs, the assessee claimed reconciliation via bank statement, and the AO was directed to verify and re-adjudicate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the CPC wrongly calculated tax at the Maximum Marginal Rate. Citing a previous order for AY 2015-16 involving the same assessee, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay and, if condoned, adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) could not have remanded the matter back to the AO, as a consequential order had not been passed and the second remand report was not received. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of the remand back of the issue of deduction u/s 54/54F.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after verification of the facts. The penalty appeal was also restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 52.20 Lacs was based on a diary (BK-1) which the assessee disowned as it was not in their name and lacked specific dates. The CIT(A) also conceded that an amount of Rs. 49.05 Lacs was receivable and not paid, and the identity of the recipient was not established. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a new addition of Rs. 3.15 Lacs for election expenditure without an enhancement notice and without corroboration, which was impermissible.

The Tribunal held that the difference in sundry creditors arose due to opening balances, which could not be added under Section 68 for the current year. Furthermore, the assessee offered the remaining difference to tax in subsequent years under Section 41(1).

The tribunal held that the deletion of addition of unexplained payments was justified as the assessee provided satisfactory confirmation letters during remand proceedings. Similarly, the provision of expenses was considered an ascertained liability paid subsequently. The disallowance under section 43B concerning sales tax and VAT was also deleted as it was either already taxed or not charged to the P&L account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of notice and engagement in treatment. While noting the assessee's non-responsive conduct, the Tribunal observed that the ex-parte order was not in the spirit of Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after verification of the facts. The penalty appeal was also restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained each of the bank credits by demonstrating that the transactions were duly reported in audited books and offered to taxation where applicable. The findings of the CIT(A) were not controverted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, all quantum additions and consequential penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee advanced a sum to the Aartia, who then purchased and sold goods on the assessee's behalf. The assessee neither took delivery nor sold goods, and no consideration was exchanged with the Aartia. The net surplus of Rs. 3.81 Lacs was disclosed.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) contained a typographical error, mentioning Rs. 269.10 Lacs instead of Rs. 296.10 Lacs. The Tribunal corrected this error and directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 296.10 Lacs.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the sale deed date was wrongly considered by the AO, and the assessee's explanation was supported by an affidavit from their father. For the AY 2012-13 appeal, the Tribunal deleted the imputed addition and allowed the appeal. For the AY 2015-16 appeal, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, keeping all issues open.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revision was based on fishing and roving inquiries and lacked independent findings to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revision was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries during the limited scrutiny assessment and accepted one of the plausible views. The revision by the Pr. CIT was deemed to be a 'fishing or roving inquiry' and not justified as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The CIT(A) observed that the AO's extrapolation of receipts for the entire year was not supported by material evidence. The CIT(A) also deleted the addition of bank credits, deeming it a double addition.

The Tribunal granted further relief of Rs. 5,36,900/- considering the assessee's background and agricultural income, confirming the remaining addition of Rs. 20 Lacs.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly considered all aspects of capital gains and the assessee's submissions during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view based on the facts and documents, which could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.