ITAT Agra Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that since the co-owners did not claim their share of TDS and supported the assessee's claim for the full TDS credit, and the TDS was deducted against the assessee's PAN, the assessee was entitled to the entire TDS credit. The revenue cannot retain tax deducted at source without its credit to someone.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the pattern of immediate NEFT transfers after cash deposits suggesting accommodation entries was not sufficient to disallow the entire amount without further inquiry into the destination of funds. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- as past savings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of health issues constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the delays were condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of health issues constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the delays were condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessment order was also passed ex-parte and to ensure justice, the tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation of technological challenges and lack of guidance to be a sufficient cause. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of health issues constituted a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the delays were condoned in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were out of previous withdrawals and opening cash balance, particularly a large withdrawal for a property purchase that did not materialize. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-cooperation. However, since the original assessment order was also ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish required details regarding silver transactions to the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish required details regarding silver transactions to the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details.

The Tribunal noted that the change in form 10AD likely caused a clerical error. It directed the CIT(E) to provide a hearing to the assessee and make appropriate corrections to the registration order regarding the nature of activities and the address.

The tribunal found the assessee's conduct uncooperative and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO for expeditious disposal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods and the principle 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice, directing the assessee to be cooperative.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of the impugned order. Observing that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be cooperative.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. This was done in the interest of justice due to the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and lack of opportunity.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but also that the assessment order was passed ex-parte. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the reasons provided by the assessee as just and proper. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be cooperative.

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The ITAT condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before it. It also directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to file reasons for the initial delay and decide the matter afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's reasons. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 20.07.2022 was beyond the period of limitation, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity to the assessee to object to the remand report and did not consider the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities like delay in filing or quoting wrong sections should not bar the consideration of an application on merits, especially for charitable institutions. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to decide the appeal on merits after dismissing the condonation application to be an illegality.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (sale deeds) and noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to object to the DVO's report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities like delay in filing or quoting wrong sections should not bar the consideration of an application on merits, especially for charitable institutions. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided any cogent basis or reasoning for reducing the addition by 50%, especially given the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. The order lacked application of mind and critical analysis.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as it did not reflect whether the assessee was afforded an opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the bona fide reasons provided by the assessee's legal heir. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the additions were not made, the appeal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the observance of natural justice principles.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons provided by the assessee. The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be cooperative.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be cooperative, and the CIT(A) was instructed to ensure principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to be diligent and cooperative. The Assessing Officer was also directed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While noting the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the fresh registration granted to the assessee and did not provide an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside due to violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be cooperative.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's critical illness. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should first decide the quantum appeal before adjudicating the penalty appeal, which is consequential. The principles of natural justice were also to be observed.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While noting the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.