ITAT Agra Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed documentary evidence, including the sale deed and bank statements, which the lower appellate authority had overlooked. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for both gifts. The fact that the donor sister was not subjected to scrutiny was not a valid reason to disbelieve the gift. Similarly, for the gift from the other sister, the bank statements and confirmations were deemed sufficient.

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 Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's business sales, supported by month-wise details and a history of similar deposits in prior years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(Appeals)'s orders were ex parte. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for observance of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(Appeals) order were ex parte. Since the CIT(Appeals) order lacked substantial discussion on merits and failed to follow the procedure under Section 250(6), the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

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 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, while noting the assessee's unresponsiveness, decided to grant one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after considering the assessee's submissions.

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 condoned the 187-day delay in filing the first appeal, citing the principle that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to observe principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, considering the COVID-19 period exclusion and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

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 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 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 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 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 noted that the assessee was subsequently granted Section 12AA registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 11, considering compliance with other conditions stipulated in Sections 11 to 13.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not examine the income tax returns of Prashant Gupta, who allegedly owned the bank account and reflected the transactions. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after examining Prashant Gupta's returns.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the source of Rs. 20 lakhs and the share of expenses, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of advance tax. The assessee contended that their income was below the taxable limit, making advance tax payable nil. The Tribunal found merit in this contention and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

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 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 held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The explanations offered for the delay in obtaining the certified copy and pursuing the rectification application were found to be unreasonable.

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, 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 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 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 noted that a coordinate bench had previously remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The current CIT(A) asked for assessment orders of previous and subsequent years, which the assessee could not provide. The CIT(A) then sustained the addition based on the AO's order. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed financial history for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, showing significant year-on-year variations in sales and net profit, indicating an inconsistent business. Considering the assessee is a civil contractor dealing with major transactions with HCCL and the AO accepted the gross turnover, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in substantiating labour and wages payments in an unorganized sector. In light of these peculiar facts, the Tribunal opined that estimating the profit at 4% would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the AO was directed to estimate the income at 4%. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that there is no explicit restriction in Section 87A or Section 111A of the Income Tax Act denying rebate on STCG. The proposed amendment in Finance Bill 2025, which is prospective, further supports this interpretation for the current assessment year.

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 found that the NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex parte. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a genuine sale concluded in the previous assessment year (AY 2010-11), and the payment was received in the current assessment year (AY 2011-12). The AO erred in disallowing the income as an accommodation entry in the year of receipt of payment, as the transaction was completed in the prior year.

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 held that levying penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for a mere technical breach, when all necessary details were subsequently provided and the assessment was completed based on them, was not justified. The penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's reasonable explanation and the fact that the quantum appeal was remitted. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted as it was based on the remitted quantum order.

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 found that the NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex parte. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

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.