ITAT Agra Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to verify if the Karta and the HUF member had not claimed the TDS credit in their individual returns. If confirmed, the AO should grant the full TDS credit to the HUF.

The tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowed to furnish further evidence. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the appeal prematurely and did not consider the additional legal grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, directing it to admit and dispose of all grounds, including the additional legal grounds, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowed to furnish further evidence. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the issues on merits.

The tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and directed the JCIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and decide the issues afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the original ground for reopening (under-reported sales) was not sustained. The tribunal further ruled that the ad hoc disallowance of expenses was unwarranted as the books of accounts were not rejected under Section 145(3).

The tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowed to furnish further evidence. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the issues on merits.

The tribunal found that the NFAC mechanically confirmed the AO's order without independent adjudication. Therefore, the tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting new evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for a de novo adjudication, allowing the AO to properly examine the assessee's contentions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act could not be applied as the assessee did not maintain books of account, and a bank passbook cannot be considered as such. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148A and 148 of the Act were invalid and bad in law. This was because the faceless assessment scheme, notified on March 29, 2022, mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless mechanism.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued by the JAO contrary to the mandatory faceless scheme, making it invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for reopening the assessment was invalid and void ab initio. The notices issued by the JAO were found to be bad in law as they contravened the mandatory provisions of the faceless scheme.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for reopening the assessment was mechanical and lacked application of mind, citing several High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for reopening the assessment was bad in law and void ab initio. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as a result.

The tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits, as the silver bullion was disclosed under the Income Disclosure Scheme 2016 and short-term capital gains from its sale were declared and taxed. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The tribunal found that the NFAC mechanically confirmed the AO's order without properly considering the assessee's multiple replies, explanations, and supporting documents, including bank statements, cash book, and business license. Therefore, the tribunal restored the entire appeal to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The tribunal condoned a 70-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and consider any further evidence or grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence, including an affidavit from the assessee's father and a letter from the Gram Pradhan, supporting the claim of agricultural income. It restored the entire appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication considering these new evidences.

The tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the ld. NFAC for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and can furnish further evidence. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the NFAC.

The tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to furnish further evidence. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the NFAC for expeditious disposal.

The tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, instructing them to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to consider any further evidence or additional grounds. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

The tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication, instructing them to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider any further evidence or additional grounds presented.

The tribunal dismissed the additional grounds challenging the assessment under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C, affirming the AO's approach. However, it allowed the original grounds, deleting the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, as the AO failed to reject the books of accounts under Section 145(3) despite the assessee providing supporting evidence and bank payment details.

The tribunal held that no addition could be made under the head 'Capital Gains' in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee was the purchaser of the property and not the transferor. Citing a jurisdictional High Court decision, the tribunal found that the addition under 'Capital Gains' was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for issuing notices under sections 148A and 148 was bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. It directed the AO to consider all documentary evidence, including VAT assessment orders, VAT returns, and debtor confirmations, which the assessee had furnished before the tribunal but were not fully examined by the AO previously.

The tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not warranted because the ad hoc disallowance was made without rejecting the assessee's books of account or invoking Section 145(3). Therefore, there was no under-reporting or mis-reporting of income.

The tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits as re-deposits from earlier withdrawals, supported by bank statements and cash book, which were not rejected by the AO. The revenue failed to provide evidence that the cash was used for non-business purposes or was from undisclosed sources.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the sustained addition of Rs. 6,77,876 for purchases from M/s. C.K. Industries. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine all documentary evidence provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these purchases, emphasizing that mere absence of confirmation is insufficient without considering other supporting evidence.

The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) made decisions ex parte due to the assessee's lack of response. To ensure a fair hearing, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide necessary information.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed infructuous and was also remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision based on the outcome of the new assessment.

The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was defective as it failed to specify the exact charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) against the assessee. Citing binding precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such a fundamental infirmity in the notice vitiated the entire penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty imposed was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 147 were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2), even though the assessee requested her original return be treated as a response to the Section 148 notice. This omission was deemed a fatal and incurable procedural irregularity.

The Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed for estimated expenditure or disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). For sundry creditors/debtors, the addition was inferred under Section 41(1) and not Section 68, thus not constituting concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.

The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 30, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was beyond the period of limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent assessment proceedings were quashed.

The ITAT held that the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the precise limb of Section 270A under which the penalty was initiated. Furthermore, the addition was based on an estimated net profit rate, which is excluded from 'under-reporting of income' under Section 270A(6)(b).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the cash deposit, finding its source traceable to prior withdrawals. It also allowed the appeal regarding the estimated profit on turnover, as it included FDR maturities. For the expense disallowances, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the ad-hoc disallowance percentages.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, stating that once the quantum additions forming the basis for penalties are deleted, the penalties cannot survive. The satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings also ceases to exist when the assessment order is annulled.

The tribunal upheld the deletion of penalties, stating that once the quantum additions forming the basis of the penalties are deleted, the penalties cannot survive independently. The satisfaction recorded for penalty initiation also ceases to exist when the assessment order is annulled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in applying separate net profit rates for the animal sales and iron scrap businesses. It noted that the AO failed to identify specific defects in the books of account and applied a uniform rate without proper justification, which the CIT(A) rightly corrected based on comparable cases and the assessee's own past performance.

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenditure, citing a violation of natural justice as the remand report was not shared. It remitted the issue of 'provision for overdue interest' and the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) back to the Assessing Officer for verification as per law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including cash books and patient records, to demonstrate the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted a substantial increase in cash collections in the current year compared to the previous year, which was a reasonable expectation for a medical professional.

The Tribunal held that there is no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 on commission payments to a non-resident recipient who is not liable to pay tax in India. The procedural requirements suggested by the revenue were not mandatory in such cases.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect, after applying the Madras High Court decision on Section 115BBE, fell below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE was partly allowed, resulting in a lower tax demand.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had inadvertently filed a duplicate appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the commission income was not taxable in India. Therefore, there was no requirement for the assessee to deduct TDS on these payments, and the disallowance was incorrect.

The tribunal found the assessee's irresponsive attitude unacceptable but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative.

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenditure, citing a violation of natural justice as the remand report was not shared. It remitted the issue of 'provision for overdue interest' and the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) back to the Assessing Officer for verification as per law.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had maintained books of account and that genuine business expenditures should not be rejected merely because the assessee wrongly claimed benefit under Section 44AD. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claimed business expenditures and consequently deleted the penalty under Section 271A.