ITAT Amritsar Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal and, noting the assessee's repeated non-compliance, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). This allows the assessee one final opportunity to present documentary evidence and books to substantiate bank deposits and sales figures.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as not valid due to the unrectified defect in the appeal memorandum and the lack of representation or response from the assessee or their counsel. The tribunal noted the assessee's apparent lack of interest in pursuing the appeal but granted liberty to apply for recall after rectifying the defects.

The Tribunal set aside the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal set aside the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh assessment, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documentary evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal reduced the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 10,000.

The tribunal found that all documentary evidence submitted online might not have been considered by the CIT (Exemptions). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemptions) to reconsider all evidence, including those submitted in the paper book, and provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as it was an educational institution with annual receipts below the stipulated limit. Citing the NTPC vs. CIT judgment, the Tribunal allowed the new legal claim made during appellate proceedings, as the facts were on record.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as it was an educational institution with annual receipts below the stipulated limit. It also ruled that a new legal claim could be raised before the appellate authorities if supported by existing records.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and proceeded ex-parte. It held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A without providing the AO an opportunity to examine it. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after allowing the AO to examine the new evidence.

The tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal before it and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the 126-day delay with 'sufficient cause' and, if satisfied, adjudicate the appeal on merits. The tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and the revenue's grievance regarding the CIT(A) admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A. Given the lack of representation from the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the case on merits based on available records and arguments from the DR.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing consideration of new evidence filed by the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for intentional neglect and non-cooperation in earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal, following its previous decision and High Court rulings, held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as 'Income from Other Sources' under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, effective from April 1, 2010. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the lower authorities' decision.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to natural calamities and security concerns. It then remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for all assessment years, granting the assessee another opportunity to file supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing the need for full cooperation from the assessee.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to natural calamities and security reasons. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to submit supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing that the assessee must cooperate fully.

The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). It was noted that notices were issued via the ITBA portal but not necessarily to the email ID provided, and the assessee's written submissions were not considered. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). It held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the delay in filing the first appeal before dismissing it under Section 249(3).

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to the non-appearance of the assessee/authorized counsel and the unrectified defects in the appeal memorandum, which did not comply with Rule 47(1) of the IT Rules, 1962.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to flash floods and a terrorist attack. It then remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for all assessment years, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing that the CIT(A) should consider these fresh evidences as per law.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals and rectify the defects in the appeal memorandum. If satisfied, the CIT(A) should then admit and adjudicate the appeals on their merits.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to natural calamities and security reasons. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to submit supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing that the assessee must cooperate fully. The tribunal did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

The tribunal set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. It directed the assessee to produce all documentary evidence and books of account, including the cash book, to explain the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period, emphasizing the need for proper verification.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to natural calamities and security reasons. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to furnish supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing that no opinion on the merits was expressed.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to natural calamities and security concerns. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for all assessment years, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing that the CIT(A) should consider these fresh evidences as per law.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the first appeal and, if satisfactorily explained, to decide the appeal on merits, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). It held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the first appeal before dismissing it under Section 249(3).

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing appeals due to natural calamities and security concerns. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to submit supporting documentary evidence and explanations, noting that the assessee alleged a lack of proper opportunity at earlier stages. The tribunal did not express an opinion on the merits.

The tribunal condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeals due to flash floods and a terrorist attack. It then remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for all assessment years, granting the assessee another opportunity to file supporting documentary evidence and explanations, emphasizing the need for full cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It further allowed an additional benefit of Rs. 2,50,000 for the wife's cash availability and Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessee's accumulated past savings, reducing the unexplained cash deposit to approximately Rs. 4,00,000.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay and then decide the appeal on merits if sufficient cause is established.

The tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the incorrect computation of book profits under Section 115JB. The non-examination of this issue by the AO made the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the invocation of Explanation-2 to Section 263(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided. It noted that the case had not been discussed on its merits by the lower authorities due to the ex-parte nature of the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard and present submissions.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal found that the issues were not discussed on merit and, to uphold natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a de-novo order after providing the assessee adequate opportunities to be heard and submit written responses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's medical condition and geographical constraints. It found that the lower authorities had not discussed the case on its merits and had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de-novo order after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities to be heard and submit evidence.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte and the merits of the case, including additional evidence, were not properly considered. The tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(E) for a de-novo order after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte without discussing the issues on merit or considering the assessee's submissions. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte and did not consider the assessee's submissions or additional evidence on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a de-novo order after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.

The tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A has no evidentiary value if retracted shortly after, especially without corroborative evidence. It deleted the addition of Rs. 266 Lacs, emphasizing that additions cannot be based solely on retracted statements or suspicion.

The tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A have no evidentiary value if retracted promptly and without corroborative evidence. It deleted the entire addition of Rs. 266 Lacs for M/s Varun Traders, finding the CIT(A)'s reliance on a valuation report for undisclosed investments unsustainable. For other assessees, additions for stock and cash discrepancies were partly confirmed or dismissed based on similar principles.

The tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A has no evidentiary value if retracted shortly after, especially without corroborative evidence. It deleted the entire addition of Rs. 266 Lacs for M/s Varun Traders, finding the CIT(A)'s reliance on a valuation report for undisclosed investment unsustainable. For Shri Pawan Kumar, the tribunal confirmed additions for cash discrepancy and estimated profit on deficit stock, while deleting the undisclosed investment. For Shri Mukesh Shingari, the tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding estimated profit on deficit stock and cash difference.

The tribunal held that the retracted statement made during a survey under Section 133A has no evidentiary value without corroborative evidence. It deleted the entire addition of Rs. 266 Lacs for M/s Varun Traders, finding the CIT(A)'s partial confirmation based on a valuation report unsustainable as the core issue was undisclosed investment, not valuation. For other assessees, additions for undisclosed investments were deleted, while additions for cash differences and estimated profit on stock discrepancies were upheld.

The tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A has no evidentiary value if retracted shortly after, especially without corroborative evidence. It deleted the addition of Rs. 266 Lacs, emphasizing that additions cannot be based solely on retracted statements or suspicion.

The tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings themselves were challenged as bad in law due to an incorrect PAN used for the deceased assessee and lack of material to support the alleged property purchase. The Pr. CIT set aside the assessment for fresh verification. The tribunal did not explicitly rule on the validity of the 263 order in the provided text, but rather described the Pr. CIT's action.

The ITAT reduced the estimated profit rate on material sales from 2% to 1.25% based on a prior assessment year's decision. It deleted the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs under Section 68, finding that the loan was advanced through banking channels and sourced from FDR maturities, thus discharging the assessee's onus.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. It reasoned that since sales and stock were accepted, and the assessee maintained quantitative records and made payments through banking channels, a complete disallowance was not justified, even if the genuineness of all purchases could not be fully substantiated.

The Tribunal condoned a 546-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a token cost of Rs. 5,000. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal condoned the minor delay in the assessee's appeal to it and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the original appeal and, if satisfactorily explained, to admit and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.