ITAT Amritsar Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing all appeals filed by the revenue. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made for completed or unabated assessments solely based on statements recorded during search or survey operations, in the absence of any corroborative incriminating material found and seized from the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the businesses allegedly involved were distinct legal entities and their operations were under the strict supervision of Central Excise authorities, making unaccounted production unlikely without documentary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that no incriminating material was found at the assessee's premises during the search. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in *PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd*, the Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed or unabated assessments without incriminating material unearthed during the search. The Tribunal further clarified that statements recorded during search or survey, unsupported by corroborative evidence, do not constitute incriminating material, and noted that the cigarette manufacturing firms were separate entities with their own tax compliances and excise supervision.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions. Relying on the Supreme Court's *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd* judgment, the Tribunal ruled that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search from the assessee's premises, additions could not be made for completed or unabated assessments under Section 153A. The Tribunal emphasized that statements not corroborated by evidence, and additions based on estimations, do not constitute incriminating material, especially when the alleged manufacturing units were distinct legal entities with separate assessments and excise oversight.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search at the assessee's premises under Section 132, additions made solely based on employee statements without corroborating evidence are unsustainable for completed assessments. Following the Supreme Court's pronouncements, the Tribunal reiterated that completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless incriminating material is unearthed during a search operation. Consequently, the Tribunal found no material to justify the initiation of proceedings or additions under Section 153A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that since no incriminating material was found at the assessee's premises during the search, the additions made under Section 153A were unsustainable. Following the binding Supreme Court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd and other cases, additions cannot be made for completed or unabated assessments solely based on statements or estimations without corroborative incriminating evidence. The Tribunal noted that similar appeals concerning the assessee's father had also been dismissed on identical grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions, ruling that since no incriminating material was found or seized from the assessee's premises during the search, additions made solely on employee statements and estimations could not be sustained. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal affirmed that for completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material unearthed during a search. It further noted that the group entities were distinct legal entities whose operations were under Central Excise supervision, making the allegations of unaccounted production without corroborating documentary evidence untenable.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It reaffirmed the Supreme Court's *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd* ruling, stating that no additions can be made for completed/unabated assessment years under Section 153A without incriminating material found and seized during a search. Employee statements lacking corroborative evidence cannot serve as the sole basis for additions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee discharged the initial burden of proof by presenting evidence of genuine share transactions through recognized stock exchanges, with STT paid, and holding periods exceeding 12 months. The AO failed to provide evidence linking the assessee to any manipulation or naming her in investigation reports. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of LTCG claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) for both assessment years. However, the grounds related to unexplained credits for AY 2014-15 were dismissed due to lack of submission from the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation at the assessee's premises, no additions could be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially for completed/unabated assessments. The Tribunal reiterated that employee statements alone, without corroborating incriminating evidence, are insufficient for making additions. The ruling emphasized the binding nature of the Supreme Court's pronouncements that limit the scope of Section 153A assessments to material unearthed during the search.

The tribunal deleted the addition of LTCG, finding that the assessee discharged the initial burden of proof by providing evidence of genuine transactions through recognized stock exchanges, banking channels, STT payment, and regular trading history. It noted the AO failed to establish the assessee's involvement in manipulation or provide adverse material. However, the tribunal dismissed grounds related to unexplained bank credits of Rs. 15.40 lakhs due to lack of submission by the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, reiterating that additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, especially for completed/unabated assessments. The Tribunal stressed that statements of employees without corroborative evidence cannot be considered incriminating material for initiating or making additions in search assessments. The ITAT applied the Supreme Court's principle that no addition can be made in completed assessments if no incriminating material is unearthed during the search.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that no incriminating material was found or seized from the assessees' premises during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained for completed/unabated assessments in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search. It was further held that employee statements alone, without corroborative evidence, do not constitute incriminating material, and the manufacturing units were found to be regularly supervised by Central Excise authorities, making alleged suppression unlikely.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the CIT(A), dismissing all revenue appeals. The Tribunal reiterated that no incriminating material was found or seized from the assessee's premises during the search. The additions were based solely on estimations and employee statements, which do not constitute incriminating material as per the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal concluded that the completed assessments could not be disturbed without such material, affirming that the assessee merely leased premises to distinct entities whose operations were monitored by Central Excise authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized from the assessee's premises during the search, additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained for completed/unabated assessments. It reiterated that statements of employees or other persons, without corroborative evidence or incriminating material, cannot be the sole basis for making such additions. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd, which clarified the scope of Section 153A assessments.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd, held that no additions could be made in completed or unabated assessments under Section 153A if no incriminating material was found during the search. It noted that the additions were solely based on employee statements, which lacked corroborative incriminating evidence seized from the assessee's premises. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions, stating that the AO had no material to initiate proceedings under Section 153A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, reiterating that no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises during the search. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd, it ruled that additions cannot be made under Section 153A for completed/unabated assessments in the absence of incriminating material. It emphasized that uncorroborated statements of employees do not constitute incriminating material, and the AO's additions, based on estimation and such statements, were unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It ruled that, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search under Section 132 or the survey under Section 133A, additions to completed/unabated assessments could not be made, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in *PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd*. Statements recorded during search/survey, without corroborating documentary evidence, were not considered sufficient incriminating material to justify the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed all appeals filed by the revenue. It reiterated that no incriminating material was found or seized from the assessees' premises during the search, and therefore, following the Supreme Court's decision in *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd*, no additions could be made under Section 153A for completed or unabated assessments without such material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements alone, without corroborative incriminating evidence, do not constitute a basis for making additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that for assessments under Section 153A, especially for completed assessments, no additions can be made without the discovery of incriminating material during the search. Statements of employees or other persons, without corroborative evidence or seized incriminating documents, do not constitute sufficient incriminating material. Therefore, the AO lacked the requisite material to assume jurisdiction under Section 153A and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, ruling that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed or unabated assessments. It emphasized that uncorroborated statements of employees, unsupported by tangible evidence or incriminating materials, do not constitute sufficient grounds for making additions, especially when prior assessments were completed. The decision relies heavily on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that no incriminating material was found or seized from the assessee's premises during the search. Following the Supreme Court's *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd* judgment, additions under Section 153A for completed/unabated assessments cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material, and employee statements alone, unsupported by corroborative evidence, do not constitute incriminating material. The additions by the AO were protective in nature.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing all revenue appeals. It ruled that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search and seizure operations at the assessee's premises, additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that employee statements alone, without corroborative incriminating evidence, cannot form the sole basis for additions, especially when assessments were already completed/unabated, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained proper books, quantitative details, paid VAT, made bank payments, and provided purchase bills. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries or allow cross-examination of the third party whose statement formed the sole basis of the addition, thereby violating natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee proved genuine purchases and the AO failed to disprove them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus to prove genuineness of purchases with audited books, VAT returns, bank payments, confirmed ledger, and delivery receipts. The sole basis for the addition was a third-party statement, but no corroborating incriminating material was found, and the assessee was denied cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.

Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case before the CIT(A) forthwith. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice despite the assessee's negligence, admitted the quantum appeal and restored both appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case forthwith before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, admitted the quantum appeal based on natural justice principles. It restored both appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to promptly plead and prove its case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in one appeal, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but restoring both appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to present their case promptly. This decision was made keeping in mind the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's voluntary surrender of excess cash and stock (Rs. 40 lakhs) was accepted. However, it deleted the additions of Rs. 17 lakhs for building construction, Rs. 1 crore based on slip pads, and Rs. 80 lakhs for sundry debtors, citing a lack of corroborative evidence, the retraction affidavit, and the fictitious nature of the debtors' list. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 5.79 lakhs for low net profit, stating that non-production of a stock register alone is insufficient to reject books when other records are satisfactory and the disclosed net profit rate was reasonable.

The Tribunal observed that the new documentary evidence, including bank statements and certificates from private lenders, required verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment to consider all submitted documentary evidence concerning the loans and to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the source of cash. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for reconsideration.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but upholding principles of natural justice, restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and prove its case without delay.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). It directed the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. The rejection of 80G approval was also restored to the CIT(E) for similar consideration.

Despite the assessee's negligence and non-appearance, the tribunal admitted the appeal based on principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to present and prove its case forthwith.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 253 days in filing the appeal. It held that once the books of accounts are rejected and profits are estimated, no separate additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans and partners' capital can be sustained. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the business profits at a net profit rate of 2.5% of gross sales and consequently deleted the additions made under Section 68.

The Tribunal, citing principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the fresh evidences submitted by the assessee, and the assessee is required to present and prove its case forthwith.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's grievance genuine due to the typographical error in the addition and additional explained sources of funds. It directed the AO to delete the entire Rs. 29 Lacs addition in full.

The tribunal set aside the impugned orders denying registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iv) and approval under section 80G. It directed the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing to present its case. The denial of 80G approval was consequential and thus also restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's 32-day delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT, noting his medical condition. It then remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, instructing the AO to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present documentary evidence to establish his business and explain the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal directed the AO to issue notice as per Section 282.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted the lack of crucial documentary evidence from the assessee, such as the relinquishment agreement from Mr. Vikas Sharma or the direct sale deed. Due to conflicting claims and insufficient evidence, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose, directing the assessee to provide necessary documentary evidence to prove his contention that the land was purchased from Mr. Vikas Sharma in April 2012 and that Mr. Sharma incurred the expenses.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a State Government Undertaking, did not exhibit willful default or neglect, and the delay was attributable to incorrect professional advice. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 1004 days and remanded the matter back to the FAA for adjudication on the merits of the various issues raised. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case itself.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on 29-03-2023 was invalid, as it should have been issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated by Section 151A and relevant notifications. Relying on the precedent set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Tribunal quashed the impugned notice and allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the legal issues concerning the AO's jurisdiction were vital and unaddressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both legal grounds and merits.

The Ld. DR conceded that the tax effect was below the threshold and that the case did not fall under any exceptions. The Tribunal, citing CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable since the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal, noting that the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The order was pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) only addressed the legal issue of reopening and did not adjudicate the appeal on merits regarding the additions. Due to unusual circumstances, including discrepancies in the paper book and the absence of the assessee's representative to explain certain issues, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter. The case is sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both legal and factual issues, with directions for the assessee to appear and provide necessary documentary evidence.

The Tribunal agreed that the alleged gifts were bogus. However, it ruled that the addition of Rs. 11.50 lakhs, representing cash deposited by the donor in his own bank account, could not be sustained in the assessee's hands without direct evidence linking the cash source to the assessee. The onus to explain this source lay with the donor, Mr. Gurdev Singh, not the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not made a specific addition for the bogus gifts of Rs. 9 lakhs in the assessment order, and the tribunal cannot improve upon the AO's order to make a new case.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals, noting that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment. It found that the CIT(A) failed to send hearing notices to the assessee's registered email ID, thereby denying a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, all quantum and penalty appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee a fair hearing and opportunity to present documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals, citing the assessee's medical treatment for Radiculopathy. It found that the CIT(A) had failed to issue notices to the correct e-mail ID provided in Form No. 35, thus denying the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, all quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 597 & 598/Asr/2024) were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for proper notice service and assessee's cooperation. The penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 101, 102 & 103/Asr/2025) were also remanded to the CIT(A) to be decided in conjunction with the outcome of the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's medical condition. It found that notices from the CIT(A) were not issued to the e-mail ID mentioned in Form No. 35, thus denying a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequently, all quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 597 & 598) and related penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 101, 102, & 103 under sections 271B, 271F, and 272A(1)(d)) were remanded back to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to ensure proper notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.