ITAT Amritsar Judgments — January 2026

The tribunal upheld the rejection of the registration application, noting that only a minuscule portion of the funds received was used for actual charitable activities. It found that the primary activities involved organizing lavish events for doctors, which violated the Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations prohibiting doctors from accepting freebies from pharma companies, indicating a quid pro quo arrangement rather than genuine charitable work.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's old age, medical ailments, and lack of legal guidance. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which struck at the root of jurisdiction, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of these grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. Citing medical reasons for the delay, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation of delay and then adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to furnish additional documentary evidence to explain the source of the cash deposit. The AO is directed to consider these new documents and provide a fresh assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to consider the reasons for the delay and, if sufficient cause is shown, to admit and decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal further reduced the addition by Rs. 5.50 lakhs, acknowledging it as new currency deposits from regular business. The remaining balance of Rs. 2,24,515 was deemed taxable at normal rates, as its source was explained through regular sales, thus Section 69A was not applicable to this amount.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo) to allow the assessee to present evidence regarding the source of investment and bank transactions. A token cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation, payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal because the dispute regarding the Section 80JJA deduction had been resolved in their favor by the CIT(A)'s appeal effect order. The tribunal, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and infructuous.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly considered facts pertaining to AY 2011-12 instead of AY 2010-11. Given this error and the assessee's willingness to substantiate the cash deposits, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal before the scheduled hearing date, violating natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and submit all evidence.

The tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 2.83 lakhs as unexplained cash but deleted the addition of Rs. 7.20 lakhs, noting that the books were not rejected and sales to debtors were already offered to tax. It also directed that the sustained addition of Rs. 2.83 lakhs be taxed at normal rates (30%) instead of the higher rate (60%) under Section 115BBE, citing a Madras High Court decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeal as withdrawn. For the penalty appeal, it found a violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the fire incident and its impact. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the cash deposits with supporting evidence, emphasizing that no opinion was expressed on the merits.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal, noting that the matter had already been set aside to the CIT(A) in a prior Tribunal order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal dismissed the quantum appeal as withdrawn. For the penalty appeal, it found a violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's arguments that the 8% profit margin was too high for a sim card and recharge coupon seller and that the demonetization deposit was part of business receipts. The case was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide proof.

The tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that since the assessee's revised returns filed in response to reopening notices were accepted without any further additions, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied. The concealment must be assessed against the accepted revised return, not the original return.

The tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that since the assessee's revised returns filed in response to reopening notices were accepted without any further additions, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied. The concealment must be assessed against the accepted revised return, not the original return.

The tribunal, relying on precedents from the Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts, held that since the assessee's revised returns filed during reassessment proceedings were accepted without change, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied. The concealment must be assessed against the revised return, not the original one.

The tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that since the assessee's revised returns filed in response to reopening notices were accepted without any further additions, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied. The concealment must be assessed against the accepted revised return, not the original return.

The tribunal, following precedents from the Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court, held that when an assessee files a correct return during reassessment proceedings, and it is accepted by the revenue, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The relevant return for penalty purposes is the one filed in response to the reopening notice, not the original return.

The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings but ruled in favor of the assessee on merits, stating that the AOP's main object was to establish and operate a warehouse, which constitutes a business activity. Therefore, the income from letting out the godown should be treated as 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'.

The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings but ruled in favor of the assessee on merits. The tribunal affirmed that the assessee's primary object was to establish and operate a warehouse, which constitutes a business activity under Section 2(13) of the Act. Therefore, the income derived from letting out the godown was correctly classified as 'Income from Business', making the assessee eligible for the Section 35AD deduction.

The tribunal held that the AO erred in partially rejecting the books of accounts without pointing out specific defects. Since the purchases, stock register, and sales were supported by documentary evidence and VAT returns, and the source of cash deposits was explained as sales, the addition under Section 69A was not justified. The tribunal also noted that in a subsequent assessment year, similar large cash deposits were accepted.

The tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) because the legal issue regarding the validity of the Section 153C order, specifically the recording of the satisfaction note, was not adjudicated by the first appellate authority. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions and supporting case laws on this legal point.

The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a change of opinion, as the issues of cash payments and unsecured loans were already examined during the original assessment. The AO had applied his mind and made specific observations, and no new tangible material was found. Therefore, the reassessment was invalid.

The tribunal noted that the sales and purchase bills, crucial for verifying the assessee's claims, were not presented to the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment to examine these new documentary evidences.