ITAT Agra Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify whether the charge is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and cannot club both. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted on this technical ground.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not fully comply with the second notice issued by the CIT(E) requiring documentary evidence for its charitable activities. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with notices, but also that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not fully comply with the second notice issued by the CIT(E) requiring documentary evidence for its charitable activities. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without substantial discussion on merits and expected to provide points for determination, decision, and reasons. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh with proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without substantial discussion on merits and expected to provide points for determination, decision, and reasons. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh with proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc addition of 10% of cash deposits. Given the assessee opted for Section 44AD and the business was authenticated, the AO was directed to compute income based on 8% of gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was relevant and crucial. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to consider the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was relevant and crucial. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to consider the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was relevant and crucial. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to consider the additional evidence.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence furnished by the assessee to be relevant and crucial for adjudication. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a direction to consider the additional evidence. The quantum appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also restored on similar grounds.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence furnished by the assessee to be relevant and crucial for adjudication. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a direction to consider the additional evidence. The quantum appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also restored on similar grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the Learned NFAC had decided the issue ex parte and therefore, restored the appeal to the file of the Learned NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee was given liberty to file fresh evidences and additional grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the source of the cash loan was explained and the interest payment was considered in a subsequent assessment year. For other assessment years, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s application of the peak balance theory to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the source of the cash loan was explained and the interest payment was considered in a subsequent assessment year. For other assessment years, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s application of the peak balance theory to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the source of the cash loan was explained and the interest payment was considered in a subsequent assessment year. For other assessment years, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s application of the peak balance theory to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the source of the cash loan was explained and the interest payment was considered in a subsequent assessment year. For other assessment years, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s application of the peak balance theory to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte without substantial discussion on merits, which violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's unawareness and COVID-19 disruptions. It held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without a proper hearing and set aside the order.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's illiteracy and lack of digital access as a genuine reason for the delay in filing the first appeal. The principle of substantial justice was invoked, stating that technicalities should not deny a party the opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for reopening the assessment under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the adoption of the circle rate of Rs 60.20 lakhs by applying Section 50C of the Act is in order. However, for uniformity, the purchase cost of land as on 1-4-1981 should be considered as Rs 50,000 per bigha, as accepted in the case of a co-owner (Peetam Singh) whose appeal had attained finality.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(Appeals) attempted to pass an order on merits, it did not adhere to the spirit of Section 250(6) of the Act by failing to state points of determination and reasons. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte without substantial discussion on merits and without providing adequate opportunity for hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantial discussion on merits and the violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte without substantial discussion on merits, which violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's agricultural land and past savings. While the AO had added the entire Rs. 15,25,500, the Tribunal found it appropriate to give credit for Rs. 10,00,000 and sustain the addition of the remaining Rs. 5,25,500 as unexplained money.

The tribunal noted that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing evidence to support the substantial increase in agricultural income. The lack of documentary evidence regarding land holdings, yield, and income, especially given the significant year-on-year jump, led to the conclusion that the income was not sufficiently explained.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence furnished by the assessee to be relevant and crucial for adjudication. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a direction to consider the additional evidence. The quantum appeals for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also restored on similar grounds.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal depends on the location of the assessing officer. Since the AO was in New Delhi, the appeal should have been preferred before the Delhi Tribunal, not the Agra Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the source of the cash loan was explained and the interest payment was considered in a subsequent assessment year. For other assessment years, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s application of the peak balance theory to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal, considering Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, held that if a due date falls on a holiday, payment made on the next working day is considered timely. This view is supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made purchases from the three parties and not commission payments. Upon reviewing the ledger accounts, it was found that no single transaction or aggregate daily payment exceeded Rs. 10,000. Therefore, Section 40A(3) was not applicable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for not filing a rejoinder to the remand report, despite the legal heir's refusal to accept notice and the subsequent inability to include their point of view. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's gross receipts were Rs. 2,46,35,564/- and application of income was Rs. 2,27,32,532/-, resulting in a surplus of Rs. 19,03,032/-, which was stated to be within the permissible limit of 15%. The auditor had inadvertently reported this figure in Form 10BB. The Tribunal found that the matter required verification of the audited accounts and the permissible limit for accumulation.

The Tribunal held that when the addition was made based on Form 26AS, which also contained TDS details, the AO ought to have granted credit for the TDS. The Gross injustice was carried out by the AO and upheld by the NFAC.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submission regarding the employer's contribution of Rs. 58,720/- needed verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for this limited purpose.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details and supporting documents to justify their claims regarding cost of acquisition and improvement. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the loan source was explained and the interest payment was considered in a subsequent assessment year. For other assessment years, the Tribunal affirmed the use of the peak balance theory to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed without proper application of mind and in violation of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment under section 143(1) was made without affording the assessee a substantial opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without proper adjudication and that the Assessing Officer had made a best judgment assessment due to non-compliance. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 of the Act was granted mechanically without application of mind, citing High Court precedents. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid.

The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were explained by the regularly maintained cash book, which was not rejected by the AO, the addition made was erroneous. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc addition of 10% of cash deposits. Given the assessee opted for Section 44AD and the business was authenticated, the AO was directed to compute income based on 8% of gross receipts.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without substantial discussion on merits and expected to provide points for determination, decision, and reasons. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh with proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was relevant and crucial. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to consider the additional evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time and that the NFAC's order was passed ex parte without a merits-based adjudication. Hence, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were framed ex parte due to the non-furnishing of requisite evidence by the assessee. However, considering the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and to ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and furnish evidence.

The Tribunal held that applying the circle rate under Section 50C was justified. However, to ensure uniformity with a co-owner's case where the purchase cost of Rs 50,000 per bigha as on 1-4-1981 was accepted, the AO was directed to re-compute the capital gains using this cost.