ITAT Agra Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 61 days in filing the first appeal, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned cash credits. The transactions with M/s Kashi Impex were found to be not genuine, with M/s Kashi Impex being a paper concern used for routing unaccounted money. The addition was confirmed as deemed income under Section 68.

The tribunal considered the withdrawal applications filed by the assessee. The department representative raised no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits and the assessee had made partial compliance during assessment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the cash deposits as business income. The CIT(A)'s enhancement, which sought to change the head of income, was found to be without merit, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was reversed.

The Tribunal held that Section 38 of the Income Tax Act mandates the Assessing Officer to determine the proportionate utilization of assets for depreciation. The matter of depreciation was restored to the AO for this determination.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, considering the dates of issuance and the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment order, upon which the penalty was based, was quashed by the same Tribunal in a prior appeal, the penalty proceedings had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order upholding it were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice cannot be denied on mere technicalities. It condoned the delay in filing the audit report and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not bad in law. However, it found that the cash deposits were recorded in the assessee's books of accounts and offered to tax, and the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books. Therefore, the addition was deleted to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE, with its enhanced tax rate, could not be applied retrospectively to a disclosure made prior to its amendment. The assessee's books of account were not rejected, and the investment was recorded.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by estimating a lower gross profit rate on the turnover and deleted the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs cash, finding it explained by the cash book. Interest under Section 234A was directed to be examined.

The Tribunal held that since the related quantum appeals were restored, the penalty appeals are consequential. Therefore, these penalty appeals are also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by estimating a lower gross profit rate on the turnover and deleted the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs cash, finding it explained by the cash book. Interest under Section 234A was directed to be examined.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were reflected as receipts in the assessee's books of accounts, and the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of accounts or provided specific evidence to prove the receipts were bogus. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,85,800 as unexplained expenditure was based on an inference from an excel sheet and an unprovided statement from an Omaxe employee. Since the statement was not furnished to the assessee for rebuttal, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that once the tax dispute is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, immunity is granted, and there is no basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty levied is cancelled.

The Tribunal held that when incriminating material pertaining to a third person is found during a search, proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was therefore vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was flawed due to a lack of independent reasoning, non-application of mind, and failure to provide the assessee with the material relied upon. The order passed under Section 148A(d) was quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not appear to have complied with the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not appear to have complied with the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the amounts were payments for purchases and not credit entries in the assessee's books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that Section 68 is inapplicable when there are no credit entries in the assessee's books and the payments are supported by documentation.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the related quantum appeals were restored, the penalty appeals are consequential. Therefore, these penalty appeals are also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had properly explained all bank credits by providing documentary evidence for identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and the net profit addition were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- was unsustainable as the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the entire transaction amount of Rs. 13,45,00,000/- paid through banking channels. The seller's understatement in their books could not be the sole basis for addition in the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the mandatory approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act before issuing the notice under Section 148. The reasons recorded were also not provided to the assessee. Therefore, both the notice and the assessment order were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the cash deposits as business income. The CIT(A)'s enhancement, which sought to change the head of income, was found to be without merit, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was reversed.

The tribunal found that the NFAC's decision was ex parte and lacked independent findings. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that if incriminating material pertaining to a third person is found during a search, proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was therefore vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments during the period when binding judicial orders restrained such deduction. Consequently, the interest under Section 201(1A) was also not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments during the period when binding judicial orders restrained such deduction. Consequently, the interest under Section 201(1A) was also not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority (NFAC) had decided the issue ex parte without proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the case was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A) might not have followed principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found during a search on another group, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was therefore vitiated.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence and submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if incriminating material pertaining to a third person is found during a search, proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was therefore vitiated.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and set aside the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the CA's oversight. While noting the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits to ensure principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that when incriminating material pertaining to a third person is found during a search, the Assessing Officer must proceed under Section 153C after recording satisfaction. Initiating proceedings under Section 147 in such a scenario vitiates the entire assessment.