ITAT Agra Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was negligent, it was in the interest of justice and fair play to provide an opportunity for submissions. The ex parte orders passed by the revenue authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was negligent, it was in the interest of justice and fair play to provide an opportunity for submissions. The ex parte orders passed by the revenue authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on the merits and expected to provide a speaking and reasoned order. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on the merits and expected to provide a speaking and reasoned order. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on the merits and expected to provide a speaking and reasoned order. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were from farmers for cold storage receipts. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient details and confirmations to the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and lack of knowledge by the legal representative. While the assessee's non-responsive conduct led to ex-parte orders, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and the delay in appeal.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was negligent, it was in the interest of justice and fair play to provide an opportunity for submissions. The ex parte orders passed by the revenue authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adequate opportunity and without discussing the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that reasons are crucial for judicial orders and an ex parte order without analysis lacks the spirit of the law.

The Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration as short-term capital gain. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the assessment order, noting the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence for the capital gain calculation and the nature of the property. The Tribunal noted the assessee's grievance regarding the denial of indexation benefit.

The tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that the object of procedure is to advance justice. The reasons for the delay were considered sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a clerical error in claiming exemption under the wrong sub-section (iiiad instead of vi). Form 10B was filed physically before the due date and accepted by the AO. The procedural technicalities should not defeat the substantial rights of the assessee. The denial of the claim was based on a hyper-technical approach.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 17,50,000/- in total, with Rs. 15,00,000/- accepted by the Assessing Officer as being from cash withdrawal. For the remaining Rs. 2,50,000/-, the Tribunal referred to CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017, which states that no further verification is required for cash deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000/- in the case of an individual. The Tribunal also noted that the sale of agricultural land provided a source for the difference of Rs. 2.28 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's representative's medical condition. It was satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee contended that the bank account where the cash was deposited did not belong to them but to another company. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the ground regarding the bank account being a joint account was not raised before the lower authorities and required factual verification.