ITAT Agra Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a comprehensive set of documents, including cash flow statements, SPAs, and bank confirmations, establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash transactions. The AO failed to provide contrary evidence and arbitrarily treated similar transactions differently.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was a duplication of an earlier appeal that had already been disposed of. Consequently, the present appeal was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The assessee provided explanations and supporting documents, including confirmations from an insurance agent, indicating that the credits in bank accounts were primarily from insurance premiums, interbank transfers, and personal transactions. The AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271E was consequential to the addition made under section 69A read with section 115BBE. Since the quantum addition was deleted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal, the basis for the penalty ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained independently.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries and obtained statements from buyers on oath, corroborating the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the AO had taken a plausible view based on available evidence. The PCIT's doubts were based on difference of opinion rather than lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for reopening the assessment under section 151 of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Following various High Court and Tribunal precedents, the approval was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which renders the reassessment order bad in law and void ab initio. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that the non-issuance of this notice is not a curable defect.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as undisclosed investment in a house property had attained finality as per a previous Tribunal order. The assessee's arguments regarding the basis of the addition were found unconvincing, and no defect in the penalty notice was established. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, despite maintaining books of accounts, failed to provide necessary details and documentary evidence to the revenue authorities regarding its supplies and receipts. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present these details.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to the AO's notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. While the CIT(A) deleted the addition based on additional evidence, it was observed that this evidence (ATM Service Agreement, bank statements, commission invoices) was not properly verified by the CIT(A) or referred back to the AO, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination and verification.

The Tribunal held that the issue of advances required fresh verification. It also noted that the nature of payments made to Escorts Limited, which were disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, needed to be determined as either interest or bill discounting charges.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders for both assessment years were passed ex parte without independent findings on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's and the CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte without independent adjudication on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fairplay, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that both CIT(A) orders were passed ex parte without independent findings on merits, necessitating a de novo adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for an opportunity to be heard and the liberty to raise additional grounds and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument that the firm had converted into a private limited company was dismissed as this fact was not intimated to the AO. Furthermore, no reasonable cause was provided for the non-compliance to statutory notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte but observed that the assessee was given several opportunities to comply. However, considering the assessee's plea for one last opportunity, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the sums of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from Dinesh Jethwani and Rs. 3 lakhs from Ram Kukreja were not received during the year under consideration, as they were already outstanding from previous years. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order under section 154 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the assessee. Furthermore, it was held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) as its gross receipts were less than Rs 5 crores.

The tribunal held that the addition on account of the difference in jewellery valuation was not sustainable as the assessee provided a plausible explanation regarding the lower purity of gold. Regarding the land investment, the tribunal allowed credit for a portion of the opening cash balance, treating the remainder as unexplained investment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. Observing that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex-parte without independent findings, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a 30% ad-hoc disallowance of labour expenses was excessive and reduced it to 10% to meet the ends of justice, clarifying it would not be a precedent. For the second ground, the Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed TDS remittances is not an allowable deduction, following established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without securing the assessee's presence. To ensure justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a commission agent, is entitled only to commission income. The affidavits of farmers confirming receipt of cash payments for produce, along with statutory Mandi records, established the genuineness of the transactions. The addition made by the AO was considered commercially impossible.