ITAT Agra Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish evidence. For business income, the Tribunal also allowed the assessee to submit books of account and supporting evidence to the AO for re-assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated based on a non-existent PAN. The assessment order was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits with documentary evidence and sworn affidavits from relatives and clients. The Tribunal also found the disallowance of expenses against insurance business income to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AD of the Act applies, mandating an 8% profit rate on the business receipts. Therefore, the profit should be calculated at 8% of the cash deposits, not 30%.

The Tribunal held that when incriminating documents pertaining to a third party are 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 disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) could not have been made in the intimation under Section 143(1) as the issue was highly debatable at that time. The Assessing Officer should have resorted to Section 143(3) for such debatable issues.

The Tribunal held that the creditworthiness of Md. Kamran Ali Khan, from whom the assessee received Rs. 9,50,000/-, was established through documentary evidence and an affidavit. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 9,50,000/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's money lending business was not doubted and it was conducted in cash, the realization of debtors and interest income in cash could explain the cash deposit. Therefore, the deposit was not unexplained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to payment of costs. It restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction for reopening was flawed because the alleged escaped income of Rs. 33 lakhs was below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs for reassessment beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in ITA No. 117/AGR/2026 due to the delay, citing insufficient cause. However, for ITA No. 85/AGR/2026, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations for cash deposits and income disclosures, thus cancelling the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in ITA No. 117/AGR/2026 due to the delay, citing insufficient cause. However, for ITA No. 85/AGR/2026, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations for cash deposits and income disclosures, thus cancelling the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since Mr. Deepak owned up to the cash and it was intended for his business expenses, it should not have been added to the assessee's income. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of estimated household expenses was also deleted as there was no basis for it.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence and claim deductions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the AO shifted focus from the reasons for reopening (cash transactions) to estimating net profit without making additions on account of the initial reasons. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it. It found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the quantum appeal on delay and restored it for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) as its outcome depended on the quantum appeal.