ITAT Agra Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without due application of mind, as evidenced by the consolidated approval for multiple assessees and assessment years on the same day, and the impossibility of physical file movement. Consequently, the search assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to produce books of accounts and evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO and was assured a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was relevant and crucial for adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in light of these new evidences.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery was sufficiently explained by VDIS declarations, wealth tax returns, and purchase bills, and that the additions based on computer data were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal also allowed cross-objections related to Section 153D.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view. The purchases were found to be genuine, supported by banking channels and export of goods.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view. The purchases were found to be genuine, supported by banking channels and export of goods.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view. The purchases were found to be genuine, supported by banking channels and export of goods.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had leased its factory premises to 'HMA Agro Industries Ltd.', and the assessee had provided relevant documentation, including rent payments and ledger accounts, to demonstrate that it had not carried out any activities in that facility. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings based on incorrect facts and a misunderstanding of the assessee's operations. The factual matrix was properly appreciated by the CIT(A), who correctly deleted the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s order. The appeals for AY 2022-23 and 2023-24 were also dismissed as the facts were similar.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery was sufficiently explained by VDIS declarations, wealth tax returns, and purchase bills, and that the additions based on computer data were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal also allowed cross-objections related to Section 153D.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery was sufficiently explained by VDIS declarations, wealth tax returns, and purchase bills, and that the additions based on computer data were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal also allowed cross-objections related to Section 153D.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had leased its factory premises to 'HMA Agro Industries Ltd.', and the assessee had provided relevant documentation, including rent payments and ledger accounts, to demonstrate that it had not carried out any activities in that facility. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings based on incorrect facts and a misunderstanding of the assessee's operations. The factual matrix was properly appreciated by the CIT(A), who correctly deleted the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s order. The appeals for AY 2022-23 and 2023-24 were also dismissed as the facts were similar.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, directing that a fresh order be passed without being influenced by previous observations. The assessee was granted liberty to furnish fresh evidence and additional grounds, and was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the mining department's reporting errors in Form 26AS, which led to additions, required factual re-verification by the AO. Similarly, the source of cash deposits needed further scrutiny, especially with additional evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, both issues were restored to the AO for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 11,90,27,242/- concerning sundry creditors, as the AO failed to provide evidence or specify the relevant section of the Income-tax Act. The addition related to interest on fixed deposits was also deleted, but interest on cash credit was sustained under Section 43B. The addition for depreciation was deleted due to lack of basis. However, a part of the 'other expenses' related to legal expenses was sustained due to insufficient details.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had leased its factory to HMA Agro Industries Ltd. and had not conducted any activities there. The AO initiated proceedings based on incorrect facts, and the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the factual matrix and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the cash found did not belong to the assessee, as it was established to belong to group companies and was kept for security. The Tribunal also noted that the admission regarding jewellery was made under pressure and coercion, and the assessee had provided evidence to explain its source.

The Tribunal held that a CBDT circular provided an exception allowing jurisdictional AO to complete assessments due by 31-3-2022 even with procedural constraints under Section 144B. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment as non-est was incorrect.

The Tribunal observed that the mining department's reporting errors in Form 26AS, which led to additions, required factual re-verification by the AO. Similarly, the source of cash deposits needed further scrutiny, especially with additional evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, both issues were restored to the AO for denovo adjudication.