ITAT Agra Judgments — September 2025

The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the AO, allowing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, after perusing the records and hearing arguments, upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were explained by genuine cash sales and that the assessee had a track record of similar deposits.

The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's first appeal ex parte without deciding on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was unresponsive, the CIT(Appeals) failed to provide a reasoned order.

The Tribunal noted that the ex parte order was passed without substantial discussion on merits. While the assessee was non-responsive, the CIT(Appeals) failed to provide a speaking and reasoned order as required by law. The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.

The CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee provided a detailed reconciliation of bank credits with various factors including GST, VAT, loans, and internal transfers, which were supported by bank statements and other documentary evidence. The AO had erred in not considering these factors.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to submit complete documentation, including confirmations, sample bills, or bank extracts, for the outstanding liabilities before the revenue authorities. The Tribunal observed that the provided documents in the paper book were voluminous and required verification, which was not done by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was issued two PANs and had filed returns with the new PAN, but a bank account linked to the old PAN was used for transactions. The AO obtained information regarding these transactions and made additions. The Tribunal found it necessary to verify if the transactions from the old PAN linked account were considered in the return filed with the new PAN.

The Assessee was later granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act, making it eligible for exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine whether the Assessee complied with other conditions for exemption under Sections 11 to 13 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was without appreciating the entries in the books of accounts and the conduct of the assessee. Salary payable as on 31-03-2016 is a genuine business liability, and the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting. The proof of subsequent payment was also furnished.

The Tribunal accepted the cash gift of Rs. 5 lakhs from the assessee's wife (originating from her father) as a genuine gift. However, regarding the agricultural income of Rs. 4,00,000/- and sale of popular trees for Rs. 2,00,000/-, the Tribunal restored these issues to the file of the AO for factual verification.

The Tribunal found that additional legal grounds raised by the assessee were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. It noted that the assessee's brothers had filed affidavits confirming the receipt of sale proceeds from agricultural land and depositing them in the assessee's account, which the revenue had not tested. The Tribunal also observed prior remands and the NFAC's failure to follow directions.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the assessee's claim of past savings for an investment without proper inquiry, specifically failing to verify the source of credit entry in the bank account. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be justified because the AO had not conducted adequate investigation, rendering the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal held that the law regarding lack of inquiry has changed with the insertion of Explanation-2 to Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for AY 2016-17 in the assessee's own case was allowed. The Tribunal held that given the proviso to section 164(1) of the Act and the nature of the trust, the income should be taxed at the normal rate, not MMR.

The tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and giving independent findings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the delay and condoned it. It observed that both lower authorities passed orders ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided cash flow statements for FYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, indicating sufficient cash balance from previous withdrawals to explain the cash deposits. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in S.R. Venkataratnam Vs. CIT.

The Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the evidence provided by the assessee, including PAN details, confirmations, TDS certificates, and ITRs of sub-contractors. It was noted that while payments were made in cash, this is common in the unregulated sector of the business, and the assessee had fulfilled its onus by providing substantial documentation.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without deciding the merits. Considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte disposal was not justified. In the interest of justice, the appeal is restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal, after considering the condonation application and the submissions, found reasonable cause for the delay and condoned it. Since the assessee did not appear, the appeal was decided based on the Revenue's DR submissions and available records. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under Section 144, and the assessee claimed lack of opportunity and non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to condone the delay and decide the grounds of appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the issue ex-parte without securing the assessee's presence. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and appellate orders were passed ex-parte without the assessee's presence. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the orders were passed ex-parte, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, found that a denovo assessment was necessary. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the rebate under Section 87A. The amended first proviso to Section 87A allows a rebate to resident individuals opting for the new tax regime (Section 115BAC(1A)) if their total income does not exceed Rs. 7 lakhs. There is no express exclusion in Section 87A or Section 111A to deny this rebate for short-term capital gains. The absence of such an exclusion, unlike in Section 112A(6), supports this interpretation.