Loading ITAT cases…
79 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not cooperative, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the AO for a fresh assessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the need for substantial compliance with natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay of 863 days was condoned in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to apply its mind or provide a reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her claims regarding the purchase of 'Khadar Land' from her known sources and past savings.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for reopening the assessment under Section 151 of the Act was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was granted mechanically without application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte, and the assessee contended that notices were not received, preventing effective representation. The Tribunal acknowledged that appellate proceedings should ordinarily be decided after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing, and the right of appeal is a substantive legal right. Depriving an assessee of this right solely due to non-appearance, especially when there's an explanation for non-receipt of notices, is not permissible. The issues raised by the assessee, concerning the Rs. 1,00,000/- expenditure addition and the Rs. 9,30,000/- addition under Section 50C (including the opportunity under Section 50C(2)), require examination on merits. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the matter on merits, the Tribunal, to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order. The grounds were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present its case and furnish relevant evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to file a return of income and provided reasons for non-representation before the AO due to his brother's ill health. The Tribunal observed that the additions were made on two counts: alleged difference in turnover and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee contended that the AO erroneously compared bank credits with declared sales. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished explanations for cash deposits and turnover, but these were not duly verified by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal held that in the absence of verification by the lower authorities, the assessee's claims remained unverifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all material evidence. The grounds raised were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the present cases for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were identical to those for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20, which were decided by a co-ordinate bench. The co-ordinate bench had observed that the addition made on account of impounded material (LP-1) representing unaccounted purchases should only bring the profit element to tax. The CIT(A) had applied a profit percentage of 26.40% to the unaccounted sales. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the profit element embedded in unaccounted transactions. However, in the present cases, the Tribunal, in light of the previous decision and the identical facts, deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue afresh in light of the Division Bench's order in the assessee's own case (ITA Nos. 19 & 20/JAB/20223). The grounds raised in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 of the Act was granted mechanically without application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the present cases for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were identical to those for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20, which were decided by a co-ordinate bench. The co-ordinate bench had observed that the addition made on account of impounded material (LP-1) representing unaccounted purchases should only bring the profit element to tax. The CIT(A) had applied a profit percentage of 26.40% to the unaccounted sales. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the profit element embedded in unaccounted transactions. However, in the present cases, the Tribunal, in light of the previous decision and the identical facts, deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue afresh in light of the Division Bench's order in the assessee's own case (ITA Nos. 19 & 20/JAB/20223). The grounds raised in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT under Section 151 for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the seized electronic document (NPS-1) was relied upon without the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was an irregularity. Furthermore, the assessee was denied the right to cross-examine key individuals whose statements were used against them, especially as their directorship/shareholding status at the time of the transaction was disputed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in remanding the matter to the AO without adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, particularly regarding the validity of proceedings under Section 147. The ITAT followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. However, considering the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of stamp duty payment, the reason for the low sale consideration, and the denial of cash payments.
The ITAT decided to condone the delay of approximately 553 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation that he was a farmer, unaware of tax litigation, and dependent on his previous counsel who failed to act on his behalf. The Tribunal found the cause shown for the delay to be sufficient, supported by an uncontroverted affidavit. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. Furthermore, despite opportunities, the assessee remained unresponsive before the first appellate authority, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal was satisfied that the clerical mistake in the authorized representative's office, leading to the papers being misplaced, was a reasonable ground for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the Tribunal emphasized that the object of procedural rules and limitation periods is to advance the cause of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days. Consequently, the impugned order of the NFAC dated June 16, 2026, was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the NFAC for passing a fresh order on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before it. Considering the facts stated in the affidavit, particularly the serious illness and subsequent demise of the person entrusted with handling the assessee's tax and appellate matters, the Tribunal found these to be exceptional, unavoidable, and unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the delay of 847 days was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte after issuing multiple notices to which no response was received. In the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and a nullity. The Tribunal relied on the principle that an invalid or non-est order cannot give rise to legally valid proceedings. In this case, the assessment order dated 02.05.2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, was itself considered bad in law because it was passed pursuant to a notice under Section 148 dated 29.07.2022, which was deemed bad in law. Following the precedent of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Mumbai, the Tribunal held that the PCIT could not assume jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise an order that was non-est in the eyes of law. Such revision would prejudice the assessee's accrued rights. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was quashed. The Tribunal did not deal with other legal aspects or issues raised on merits, as the jurisdictional ground was allowed. The order clarified that it would have no bearing on the tax liability determined by the original assessment order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the NFAC's dismissal of the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of delay, without condoning it, was not in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the assessee for the 112-day delay, which involved the order being served on March 28, 2022, handed to the counsel, and subsequent communication issues leading to the appeal filing, constituted a sufficient cause. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the ITAT emphasized that procedural rules, including limitation periods, are intended to advance the cause of justice. Therefore, the ITAT condoned the delay of 112 days in filing the first appeal. Consequently, the impugned order of the NFAC dated December 3, 2025, was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the NFAC to pass an order afresh on merits, ensuring substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. It held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deductions after verification, citing judicial precedents and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee. It found that the revenue did not dispute that Rs. 37,50,000/- was the amount in the registered sale deed and was paid by cheque. The assessee had also categorically denied making any additional cash payment. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) relied on the possibility of unaccounted cash payments and the seized digital evidence, despite the assessee providing a confirmation letter from the builder stating only the registered sale consideration was paid by cheque. Crucially, the Tribunal held that the assessee was neither provided with the material seized during the search nor given an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were the basis for the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 17,62,500/-. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of reassessment was not explicitly decided as the primary ground led to the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that procedural law is meant to advance justice and technicalities should not defeat substantial justice. Citing a CBDT circular, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not respond to multiple notices from the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct was not appreciated, in the interest of justice, it was deemed just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for passing an order afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The Tribunal emphasized that the first appellate authority shall ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The issue of whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order was implicitly addressed by the decision to restore the matter, acknowledging the potential lack of proper opportunity. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the original appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not fully explain the source of cash deposits and the reasons for withdrawals exceeding the daily limit. The CIT(A) also observed that the assessee admitted to maintaining some cash as capital investment for business functioning without quantifying it or explaining its source. Therefore, the assessee's submission that no addition should be made was not tenable. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission seeking the application of the peak credit theory for cash deposits. To provide another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for applying the peak credit in respect of the cash deposits. The Tribunal clarified that the assessed total income should not exceed Rs. 8,41,615, which was the assessed total income by the AO. All grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in reopening the case under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of the decisions in Arpita Jena vs. ITO and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (Del-H.C.). It was observed that the reason for reopening was the verification of unsecured loans, whereas the disallowances were made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest and rent. Since these additions did not emanate from the stated reasons for reopening, the Tribunal held that the impugned additions did not survive. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed. The Tribunal noted that since the reassessment order was quashed, the remaining factual and legal issues were not adjudicated upon. The appeal was allowed on this legal point.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 12,66,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Regarding the opening cash balance of Rs. 2,25,000/-, the Tribunal found it acceptable considering the acceptance of cash receipts from the sale of agricultural land. Similarly, the claim of agricultural income of Rs. 3,40,000/- was also accepted based on the land holdings submitted by the assessee. Concerning the cash loan of Rs. 7,10,000/- from seven persons, the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had raised doubts, no inquiry was made by the AO during remand proceedings, despite the affidavits being on record. The Tribunal considered that the affidavits were already on record and not inquired into by the AO during the remand proceedings, thus the addition of Rs. 7,10,000/- could not be sustained. Consequently, the entire addition of Rs. 12,66,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 of the appeal, rendering other grounds academic. The ratio decidendi is that where documentary evidence like affidavits is on record and the AO fails to conduct necessary inquiries during remand proceedings, the addition based on unsubstantiated doubts by the lower appellate authority cannot be sustained, especially when the assessee has provided evidence for other sources of income and has land holdings.
The ITAT held that the appeal was liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal noted that notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee, but the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal also observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. While acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on merits. The ITAT directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the AO for expeditious disposal. The AO was also directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided by the ITAT.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative (AR) had stated that a physically filed appeal (ITA No. 617/Agr/2026) had already been filed on 10.08.2026 against the impugned order. The AR also moved an application requesting that the current online filed duplicate appeal be considered as withdrawn. In view of this prayer made on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal decided that this duplicate appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 are time-barred and bad in law. The primary legal ground pressed by the assessee, Ground No. 2, was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the instant case relates to AY 2015-16. The Finance Act, 2021, substituted sections 147 to 151 of the Act w.e.f. April 1, 2021. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) specifically observed that after April 1, 2021, any reference to the Income Tax Act means the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court held that the time limit prescribed for issuing reassessment notices under section 149 operates retrospectively for three years and six years for escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lacs. The Tribunal referred to paragraph 19(f) of the Rajeev Bansal judgment, where the Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. In the instant case, the initial notice under section 148 was issued on June 29, 2021, and a subsequent notice was issued on July 30, 2022. Both these notices were issued after April 1, 2021, and consequently, fall beyond the period of limitation prescribed under TOLA for AY 2015-16. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed all consequential assessment proceedings. The other factual and legal grounds were rendered academic and were not adjudicated upon.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,99,438/- as bogus cash sales under Section 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not make an addition of the sales amount despite alleging it to be non-genuine, and therefore, Section 68 could not be applied as the amounts were realized from available stock. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. Regarding the addition of Rs. 72,91,858/- as excess cash sales under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that the entire cash sales were duly recorded in the audited books of the assessee and accepted by the VAT authorities. The assessee had produced sales books, stock registers, and quantitative tally of sales. The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68/69A cannot be made simply because the cash deposit to cash sales ratio is higher during the demonetization period, in the absence of other corroborating evidence. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in Bipin Babu Agrawal (supra) and coordinate benches of the Tribunal, concluding that the impugned addition of Rs. 72,91,858/- could not be sustained and was accordingly deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption under Section 54F. The main issue was the delay of 7 months and 18 days in investing the sale consideration for a new residential flat. The Tribunal took judicial notice of the fact that this delayed period coincided with the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. It referred to the Supreme Court's order in Misc. application No. 21/2022, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purpose of limitation in all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the delay fell within this excluded period, it was condoned. The Tribunal also reiterated that Section 54F is a beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee, citing various High Court judgments. Therefore, the assessee was held entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 54F. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- as unaccounted cash was unsustainable. The addition was made based on an excel sheet found during a search on a third party, and the assessee had categorically denied making any cash payment. The Tribunal noted the absence of corroborating evidence to prove the genuineness of the excel sheet's contents. Crucially, the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine any persons whose statements formed the basis of the addition. The Tribunal reiterated the settled legal principle that documents found in the possession of a third party are not admissible as evidence unless the assessee is given an opportunity to rebut their contents or cross-examine the relevant persons. The revenue did not establish that any cash was found in the assessee's possession. While the investigation report was sufficient to trigger reopening, the addition could not be made solely on generalized, uncorroborated information from a third-party survey, which lacks evidentiary value. Therefore, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was unresponsive, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the stipulations of Section 54F(1) and 54F(4) by depositing the sale consideration in the capital gains account and utilizing it for the purchase of a new plot and construction of a residential house within the prescribed time. The tax authorities were not justified in rejecting the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the proprietorship firm was converted into a partnership firm and that the cash deposit was supported by the firm's audited books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the omission to substitute the PAN of the partnership firm in the bank account was a bank error and not sufficient to infer the deposit was in the assessee's individual capacity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal on merits after refusing to condone the delay. The tribunal emphasized that an appeal does not legally exist without condonation of delay, and therefore, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to decide on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee not receiving the appellate order. While noting the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that procedural delays in filing applications for registration or approval by charitable institutions should not be a bar to deciding the matter on merits. Technicalities should not override substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that procedural delays should not be a bar to deciding the substantial merits of an application for registration, especially for charitable institutions. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was unresponsive, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 85 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 adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that procedural delays in filing applications for registration or approval by charitable institutions should not be a bar to deciding the matter on merits. Technicalities should not override substantial justice.