ITAT Agra Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It was of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned this delay. Similarly, the Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide them afresh on merits, after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to make proper submissions and cooperate with the tax authorities. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal's decision was to restore the matters for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee was an employee of M/s ISS SDB Security Services Private Limited, which provided cash replenishment services to banks for their ATM machines. The assessee was authorized by their company to accept cash from bank branches and replenish it into ATM machines. The Tribunal noted that the transactions totaling Rs. 8,81,00,000/- were conducted on behalf of the bank branches, and certificates from the concerned bank branches were placed on record as evidence. The Tribunal further observed that the banks had wrongly associated the assessee's PAN with these ATM cash current accounts, leading to the transactions being reflected in the assessee's AIS due to a bank error. These current accounts were not in the assessee's name. The Tribunal concluded that these transactions did not represent any income of the assessee but were part of their employment-related responsibilities, and the assessee, as a small salaried employee, had no personal ownership or benefit in these transactions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order after verifying all facts and evidence and therefore, did not disturb the findings of the CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee's mother's serious illness and subsequent demise, and lack of professional assistance. Citing the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had remained non-responsive to notices issued by the first appellate authority. Despite the assessee's uncooperative conduct, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present his submissions. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's initiation of proceedings under section 263 was not justified. The original assessment under section 147 was completed after due verification of the transaction with Super Shine Industries. The issue regarding Prithivi Traders was not part of the original reasons for reopening and was raised subsequently by the PCIT. The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue regarding the Prithivi Traders transaction.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of TDS statements was a technical default, especially since the tax was deducted and deposited. It also noted that the assessee, a government entity, was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. A key grievance was the non-provision of the remand report to the assessee for filing a rejoinder. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It was of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned this delay. Similarly, the Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide them afresh on merits, after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to make proper submissions and cooperate with the tax authorities. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal's decision was to restore the matters for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. A key grievance was the non-provision of the remand report to the assessee for filing a rejoinder. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits, which did not comply with section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal also observed the assessee's lack of response and cooperation throughout the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Central Government entity, had complied with TDS deduction and remittance. The failure to file the statements was considered a technical default. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present submissions before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee's mother's serious illness and subsequent demise, and lack of professional assistance. Citing the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the deposits were from a temporary overdraft facility. While the CIT(Appeals) noted this explanation, crucial bank permission details were missing. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present these documents to the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application, considering the trust was in its infancy stage and had provided documentary evidence of its activities and expenses. The expectation of extensive future plans and media coverage from a newly formed trust was deemed unreasonable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in examining the expenses when the case was selected for limited scrutiny only to verify contract receipts/fees. The Tribunal respectfully agreed with the finding of the co-ordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Suchita Bhatia (supra). The Tribunal noted that the AO is duty-bound to follow instructions regarding limited scrutiny assessments and that examining issues outside the limited scope requires conversion to complete scrutiny with necessary approvals, which was not done. The Tribunal found that the issue of expenditure was not part of the reasons for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny and was not remotely connected. Therefore, the approach of the revenue authorities in including the issue of expenses was incorrect. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was quashed. The other grounds challenging the addition on merit were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, relying solely on the AO's ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter requires a denovo assessment. The issues are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application, considering the trust was in its infancy stage and had provided documentary evidence of its activities and expenses. The expectation of extensive future plans and media coverage from a newly formed trust was deemed unreasonable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal before it, noting a reasonable cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal also condoned a meagre delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) failed to follow previous ITAT directions for verification. The matter was remitted back to the AO with strict directions to adhere to the earlier ITAT order for verification of deductees.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts, noting that the assessee had provided relevant information for AY 2014-15 and that the opening balance in AY 2016-17 was a carry-forward from AY 2014-15. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal and upholding the rejection of the rectification application. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, relying solely on the AO's ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex-parte without considering the merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the assessment order being passed in the wrong name and without a PAN reference. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and the material on record. Finding that a denovo assessment was required in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to be heard and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had sustained the addition relying on the AO's ex-parte order and had not decided the issue on merit. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 144 without giving proper opportunity to the assessee, and the CIT(A) affirmed this action. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, deemed a denovo assessment necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 was passed without adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the quantum addition was based purely on an estimated basis. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions.

The Tribunal observed that for payments made for advertisement expenses, the aggregate of payments to certain parties exceeded Rs. 75,000, thus TDS was applicable as per the proviso to Section 194C(5). However, regarding the construction payments to Ronit Developers, the Tribunal inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the charitable institution, directing the AO to consider only the 4% margin on the total contract value for TDS under Section 194J.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1650 days, recognizing that the assessee's error in filing the ROI under the wrong section and awaiting rectification constituted sufficient cause. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter requires a denovo assessment. The issues are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment and resided in a remote area, which caused delays. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing before the CIT(A) and ITAT in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and materials on record. It observed that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 29,05,000. While the AO accepted most submissions during remand, he rejected claims for opening cash balance, Yes Bank withdrawals (Rs. 90,000), and receipts from Basant and Deepak (Rs. 60,000). The CIT(A) deleted the Yes Bank withdrawal addition but upheld the Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 7,23,730 for opening cash balance. The Tribunal found that the Rs. 60,000 lent to Basant and Deepak and received back by the assessee could be accepted as the assessee's own money returned. Regarding the opening cash balance, the assessee could not prove its existence beyond claiming it was from past savings and income. However, acknowledging the possibility of some savings, the Tribunal directed the deletion of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 2,50,000 as explained sources of income. The addition of Rs. 7,23,730 was not fully accepted, but a partial relief of Rs. 2,50,000 was granted, effectively upholding Rs. 4,73,730 of the opening cash balance claim.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the DVO's valuation report and the assessee's objections thereto before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The CIT(Appeals) rightly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, even though it was filed on the same day the assessment order was passed and was ignored by the AO due to potential technical issues. The CIT(Appeals) has co-terminus powers with the AO and was competent to consider such evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had issued multiple notices for response, but the assessee failed to submit. However, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on merits, failing to provide reasons for the decision as required. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the DVO's valuation report and the assessee's objections thereto before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.