ITAT Allahabad Judgments — November 2025

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not attracted when the assessee has not maintained books of accounts at all; in such cases, Section 271A (for non-maintenance of books) should be considered. Citing jurisdictional High Court decisions and other ITAT benches, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty u/s 271B was leviable as the assessee had not maintained books of accounts.

The Tribunal, relying on its earlier decision in *Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd.* and a Third Member decision of the Delhi Tribunal in *Dheeraj Chaudhary*, found that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid. As the approval in the present case was identical to the one previously held invalid, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal condoned a 292-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's past non-compliance but decided to provide another opportunity in the interest of substantial justice. The case was restored to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for a fresh hearing on merits, with a warning to the assessee to ensure full compliance.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedents (e.g., PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.), ruled that additions made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during search, or based on "dumb documents" lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be sustained. Accepting the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal found the lower authorities' findings incorrect and deleted all additions sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments convincing, relying on Supreme Court precedents (e.g., PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell) which state that additions in search assessments cannot be sustained without incriminating material. It concluded that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on presumptions, surmises, and imagination rather than corroborative evidence or incriminating documents. Accordingly, all the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the NFAC for adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to comply with NFAC notices and directions, failing which the NFAC could pass ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal, after considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay and the precedents from the Supreme Court, found that the assessee failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay of 824 days. The reasons provided were vague, uncorroborated, and showed a lack of bona fide, diligence, and vigilance on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself on the ground of limitation.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Consequently, it set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) and restored the file to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a caution to the assessee for full compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee one more opportunity to explain the source of the credit entries in his bank account, with a caution that non-compliance would allow the AO to proceed ex-parte.

The Tribunal condoned a significant delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's illiteracy and lack of computer literacy. It found that the NFAC had passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present her case and produce evidence for the bank deposits.

The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments convincing. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it held that additions made without incriminating material found during search, or based on "dumb documents" lacking corroborative evidence, or on amounts already reflected in the books, cannot be sustained. Consequently, all additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. and other precedents, held that additions made under Section 153A cannot be sustained if they are not based on incriminating material found during the search. It further ruled against additions based on "dumb documents" from which no meaningful inference could be drawn, or on items already reflected in the assessee's books of account. Consequently, all additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal recognized that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the source of cash deposits and credit entries after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to submit evidence for the indexed cost of acquisition and the source of cash deposits. Granting one more opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a chance to explain the cash deposits with evidence and justify the indexed cost, failing which the AO can pass an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It decided to restore the case to the Assessing Officer, directing them to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored both appeals to the NFAC, directing it to hear the cases on merits. The ITAT granted this opportunity due to the assessee's counsel's serious illness and subsequent death, which prevented proper representation before the NFAC.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte, and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a de novo order, directing the CIT(A) to ensure a reasonable opportunity is provided to the assessee.

The ITAT noted that the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and summarily dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT noted that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A), considering the claim of bona fide belief. In the interest of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue of the Rs.1,65,55,042/- addition back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.