ITAT Agra Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without discussing the merits of the case, which is against the spirit of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal found it just and proper to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had surrendered a significant amount of income in A.Y. 2014-15, which was accepted by the Department. The revenue failed to establish that this cash was utilized elsewhere or was not available. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the burden was on the revenue to disprove the assessee's explanation and that mere conjectures or suspicions cannot form the basis for additions. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE of the Act applies prospectively.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after noting that assessment notices were sent to a wrong email ID and the previous advocate's negligence. The issues of de novo assessment and penalty were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly investigated whether the information received from the investigation wing pertained to income already declared by the assessee. Merely receiving information does not presume non-declaration. The addition was made on the basis of income declared under the wrong section.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was out of previous withdrawals from the bank account. The assessee had also submitted that the delay in depositing the cash was not unreasonable. The Tribunal observed that keeping cash in hand for a certain period after withdrawal cannot be a reason for addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating it was not deliberate. Although the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR did not controvert the assessee's submission regarding the settlement under VSVS. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the VSVS application failed.

The assessee's Authorized Representative informed the tribunal that the settlement under the VSVS scheme was successful, and therefore, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The Department's representative did not object to this submission.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasonable cause due to the assessee's age, background, and medical condition. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

The present penalty appeal is remitted back to the Assessing Officer, who is directed to follow the decision of the High Court on the quantum appeal. The Assessing Officer is permitted to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after the High Court's decision, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits. The tribunal also observed that the original assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B due to the assessee's non-response.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of bona fide reasons. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing the DR and perusing the condonation application, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a denovo assessment was required.

The CIT(Appeals) set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing an opportunity for hearing. The assessee appealed, arguing that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) has the power to remand under Section 251(1)(a) when the assessment order is passed under Section 144.

The territorial jurisdiction for filing an appeal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer, not the assessee's place of business or residence. This principle has been reinforced by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) were crucial and relevant for adjudicating the addition under Section 68. The Tribunal found it fit to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the admission of these additional evidences, to ensure justice and fairplay. The assessee was also permitted to furnish further evidence.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal accepted the agricultural income shown by the assessee on a proportionate basis to the extent of agricultural land owned by the assessee and treated the differential sum as income from other sources. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding the reasons for reopening vague, lacking tangible material, and constituting a change of opinion and fishing inquiry.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's gross receipts were below Rs. 1.00 crore and the primary object was educational. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-registration and 'mistake apparent from records' under Section 154, without addressing the core issue of exemption eligibility. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition and the consequential penalty. The CIT(Appeals) had considered additional evidence, including bank correspondence, which established that the assessee's PAN was indeed wrongly linked to the institutional account. The revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- by accepting the assessee's explanation that his PAN was wrongly linked to an institutional account due to a bank error. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. Consequently, the penalty deleted by the CIT(A) as consequential to the addition is also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the rectification application without considering the Supreme Court's judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that judicial decisions, especially from the Supreme Court, operate retrospectively and clarify the correct legal position. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) should have considered this judgment for rectification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the rectification application without considering the apex court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue of additions not based on incriminating material is crucial and subsequent judgments clarify the law, which should be applied retrospectively for rectification.

The CIT(Appeals) rejected the assessee's rectification application, stating it was beyond the scope of section 154. However, the Tribunal noted that subsequent Supreme Court judgments (Abhisar Buildwell and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange) clarified that additions not based on incriminating material found during search are impermissible for completed assessments, and such judgments should be considered for rectification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were unsustainable in law due to procedural defects, specifically the lack of proper approval under Section 153D. The Tribunal also considered the issue of retraction of statements and found that additions based solely on such statements without corroborative evidence were not sustainable.