ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2025

The assessee's counsel submitted an application for withdrawal of the appeal, stating that the assessee was not interested in pursuing it. The Ld. DR did not object.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation regarding the source of deposits through affidavits, and the Department failed to provide contrary evidence. The deeming provision of Section 69 could not be invoked as the source of deposits was identified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the same, and admitted the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on vague information from the investigation wing without any concrete evidence. The mere statement of a third party without corroborating documents cannot form valid reasons for reopening the case.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, and the issue of delay was not to be raised.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the period of delay, restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed not to raise the issue of delay.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, in view of the assessee's decision to opt for the DTVSV-2024 scheme and withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and the additional evidences, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication of the Rs.7.02 Lacs addition. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor were established through documentary evidence, including PAN, MCA data, ROC filings, and bank statements. A mere clerical error in the name did not warrant disregarding the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was legally invalid because it was issued after the mandatory Faceless Reassessment Scheme notification, which requires such notices to be issued through automated allocation. Thus, the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's background. It directed the AO to re-compute income by applying a 3% profit rate on balance receipts.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice. The issue of delay was not to be raised by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since TDS was deducted against the assessee's payment and it was the assessee's money that was deducted, the credit for the TDS is allowable to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to present its case and substantiate it before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of the business loss claim. The assessee was instructed to provide sufficient documents and evidence to prove its case.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to present and prove their case effectively.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO instead of the FAO under Section 148 of the Act, contrary to the mandatory faceless procedure notified under Section 151A, vitiates the assessment proceedings. The notice was quashed.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoning the delay, and set aside the impugned order. The AO was directed to frame a de novo assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which contravenes the provisions of Section 151A and the relevant notifications mandating a faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the faceless assessment scheme, notified under Section 151A, applies to all charges, including Central and International Taxation, and mandates the issuance of notice under Section 148 by the FAO. Issuance by the JAO vitiates the proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts as no specific defects or flaws were pointed out, and the assessee had substantially furnished documentary evidence. The ITAT also rejected the Revenue's plea regarding a violation of Rule 46A, noting that the additional evidences presented to the CIT(A) were merely an extension of details already provided during the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the land was situated within 8 kilometers of the municipal limits of Jagadhri based on the Inspector's report. The certificate from the Gram Panchayat was not considered reliable for determining the municipal distance.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of the mere provision for gratuity under Section 40A(7) was correct. However, it considered a new plea that a certain sum was actually paid towards LIC premium and another sum as gratuity debiting the provision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate these specific payments.

The Tribunal held that cash received from an HUF is exempt u/s 10(2) of the Act, as an HUF is a group of relatives and money withdrawn is from the contributor's own resources. The addition for AY 2020-21 was deleted based on this reasoning and precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without appreciating the cause shown by the assessee, which was due to the CA's lapse. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no incriminating material or corroborating evidence for the alleged cash payment, even after specifically directing the Revenue to produce such proof. The original digital entry itself denoted bank payment, contradicting the AO's conclusion. Citing a High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material, especially when the assessee was not searched and the material belonged to a third party. Thus, the addition was deemed unsustainable.

Considering the factual matrix and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal. The CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate the case on its merits, with the assessee given the opportunity to present its arguments. The appeal before the Tribunal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that cash received from HUF is exempt u/s 10(2) of the Act, as HUF is a group of relatives and the funds are from their own resources. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had declared sufficient income, allowing for telescoping of the amounts found. Thus, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay and the failure to comply with the pre-condition of depositing advance tax or seeking exemption. The claim of dissolution of the firm was not substantiated with credible evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay, demonstrating sufficient cause as per Section 249(3) of the Act. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating the merits was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of substantiating the purchases by providing purchase bills, e-way bills, bank payment confirmations, and GST returns. The AO failed to bring cogent material evidence to contradict the genuineness of these transactions. The Tribunal also noted the violation of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination opportunity for the supplier's statements and that the profit rates of the assessee were consistent with previous years.

The Tribunal remanded the addition of ₹35 lakhs related to three HUFs back to the CIT(A) for detailed verification of newly presented fund flow and documents, imposing a cost of ₹3000 on the assessee for late submission. The addition of ₹5 lakhs from Smt. Sushma Kabra was deleted, as her identity, creditworthiness, and loan repayment were established, with no contrary evidence from lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of substantiating the purchases by providing purchase bills, e-way bills, GST returns, and evidence of payment through banking channels. The AO failed to bring cogent material evidence to contradict the assessee's claims, and the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the statement of Shri Vikas Vats to GST authorities could not be relied upon for IT proceedings, especially since it was retracted. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the source of Rs. 44.80 Lacs from cash sales was explained and supported by audited books and GST returns, which the AO did not dispute.

The Tribunal held that while cash deposits amounting to Rs. 5,49,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 from East Delhi Finlease Co. were unexplained and thus taxable, the remittances of Rs. 25,07,984 from the assessee's foreign bank account were capital in nature and not taxable in India as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act. The credit card payments were also considered to be made from the already added amount.

The Tribunal found that the assessee repeatedly failed to provide required evidence and comply with directions, demonstrating a pattern of non-compliance. The CIT(A) correctly rejected the appeal as the assessee did not substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence. The repeated failure to comply and the filing of irrelevant material were not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Department failed to provide incriminating material to suggest the jewellery was purchased during the search period from unexplained resources, allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the addition of Rs. 46,96,225. Regarding the Rs. 10 lacs receipt, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that it was not found from the assessee's premises and lacked corroborative evidence, thus rejecting the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's selection of the incorrect clause was an inadvertent error. Since the assessee otherwise fulfills the conditions for registration, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2012-13 was based on a factual misconception that the assessee had not filed a return, and the quantum of escaped interest income was also erroneous. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 were vitiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to freshly examine the documents now filed by the assessee to prove the source of the cash deposit. If the assessee successfully demonstrates the source, the addition shall be deleted.

The Tribunal, relying on several High Court and its own previous judgments, held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer constituted a jurisdictional error, making the re-assessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the re-assessment order and allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable on facts. The assessee is a corporate entity with regular cash flows from its business of selling ply-boards, and its books of accounts were not found faulty. Making additions based on mere suspicion or by ignoring the assessee's books of accounts is fallacious.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoned the delay, and directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment. The assessee was instructed to present its case and provide proof.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 were vitiated due to being based on a wrong assumption of facts and incorrect quantum of income. As the reassessments for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 stemmed from the AY 2012-13 proceedings, they were also quashed.