ITAT Agra Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included the debtors ledger account, profit and loss account, and balance sheet for the financial year 2017-18. The Tribunal found these documents to be relevant and material to the issue involved in the appeal. However, it noted that these documents required verification. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the additional evidence, afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and then pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the impugned order was set aside. The issue of whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without a reasonable opportunity of hearing was implicitly addressed by the remand for fresh verification and hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been afforded six opportunities by the first appellate authority but failed to respond, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). While acknowledging the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings. The CIT(A) was instructed to ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was deemed liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the merits of the addition of Rs. 1,05,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee's circumstances, including being from a rural background and an ex-serviceman, warranted condonation of the delay. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, emphasizing that the object of procedural rules and limitation periods is to advance the cause of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays of approximately 9 months and 7 months in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal further set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) dated 17.09.2025 and restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee's circumstances, including being from a rural background and an ex-serviceman, warranted condonation of the delay. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, emphasizing that the object of procedural rules and limitation periods is to advance the cause of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays of approximately 9 months and 7 months in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal further set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) dated 17.09.2025 and restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct was noted, in the interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the CIT(A) for expeditious and effective disposal. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The issue of the addition of Rs. 35,86,000/- under Section 69A was not decided on merits by the ITAT. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.