ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue lacked sufficient corroborative evidence. The statements of third parties, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be the sole basis for an addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee indeed acted as a 'Kachha Arhtia', receiving payments on behalf of farmers, and that commission income formed its actual earnings. Although some traders deducted TDS under Section 194Q on gross receipts not belonging to the assessee's income, the Tribunal ruled that the TDS was on the assessee's money and therefore full TDS credit should be granted. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the full TDS credit.

The Tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal regarding suppressed professional receipts, restricting the addition. It dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning an addition based on a DVO report, upholding the deletion by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow telescoping benefits for unaccounted expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of suppressed professional receipts should be restricted, and the deletion of an addition based on a DVO report was justified. The benefit of telescoping for unaccounted expenditure was also addressed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide cogent evidence for the cash payment and violated the principle of natural justice by denying the assessee cross-examination rights. The assessee, having provided documentary evidence of bank payments, confirmation from M/s Omaxe Ltd., and an affidavit, was deemed to have discharged its onus. The Tribunal concluded that the addition, based on unsubstantiated allegations and presumptions, was not sustainable and directed the AO to re-compute the income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly assumed the assessment was under section 144, when it was actually under section 153C read with section 143(3). The CIT(A)'s remand order was quashed, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, ruling that the Tribunal, being a creature of statute, lacks the power to condone delays in filing applications for 80G approval. Such power rests solely with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and the Tribunal cannot extend or relax statutory timelines under Section 254 of the Act, as supported by Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal ruled that as the assessee acted solely as a commission agent, the gross receipts on which TDS was deducted were not his income. Therefore, the TDS deducted, being the assessee's money, should be fully credited to him. The Ld. AO was directed to grant full TDS credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly assumed the assessment was under section 144, when it was actually under section 153C read with section 143(3). The CIT(A)'s remand order was quashed, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte disposal without stating reasons or points of determination was contrary to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It found that serving notices to the previous counsel's email instead of the one specified in Form 35-A was not in accordance with Form 35-A and Section 282 of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest, confirming the application of Section 56(2)(viii) based on a Coordinate Bench precedent. The appeal challenging the Section 143(1) intimation order was also dismissed. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for a 50% deduction under Section 57, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the income accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that revised Form 10BB and additional evidence regarding the correct application of funds were submitted. It held that while CPC's automated processing was based on available data, the additional evidence and rectifications required fresh consideration. Therefore, both appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including examining the time limit conditions for accumulation of income under Section 11(2).

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) was specifically directed not to raise the issue of delay.

The Tribunal noted CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023, which allows Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (CCsIT) and Directors General of Income Tax (DGsIT) to condone delays in filing returns for 80P deductions for AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. Accordingly, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to enable the assessee to apply for condonation of delay from the appropriate authority, with the appeal to be adjudicated based on the outcome of that application.

The Tribunal considered CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023, which provides for condonation of delay in filing returns for Section 80P claims for assessment years including 2019-20. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to seek condonation from the appropriate authority, with the appeal to be adjudicated based on the outcome of such application.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment without adjudicating the merits. However, recognizing that the assessment was framed ex parte and upholding principles of natural justice, the ITAT also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the bank credits.

The Tribunal noted that revised Form 10BB and additional evidence regarding the correct application of funds were submitted. It held that while CPC's automated processing was based on available data, the additional evidence and rectifications required fresh consideration. Therefore, both appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including examining the time limit conditions for accumulation of income under Section 11(2).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte disposal without stating reasons or points of determination was contrary to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It found that serving notices to the previous counsel's email instead of the one specified in Form 35-A was not in accordance with Form 35-A and Section 282 of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte disposal without stating reasons or points of determination was contrary to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It found that serving notices to the previous counsel's email instead of the one specified in Form 35-A was not in accordance with Form 35-A and Section 282 of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte disposal without stating reasons or points of determination was contrary to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It found that serving notices to the previous counsel's email instead of the one specified in Form 35-A was not in accordance with Form 35-A and Section 282 of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte disposal without stating reasons or points of determination was contrary to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It found that serving notices to the previous counsel's email instead of the one specified in Form 35-A was not in accordance with Form 35-A and Section 282 of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte disposal without stating reasons or points of determination was contrary to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It found that serving notices to the previous counsel's email instead of the one specified in Form 35-A was not in accordance with Form 35-A and Section 282 of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest awarded on compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is part of the capital receipt and not taxable income. Furthermore, the assessee had not actually received the interest, which was held in court-ordered fixed deposits under lien.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred to a Chennai Tribunal decision, which clarified that Section 269SS applies to cash receipts as an *advance* in an immovable property transaction, not to the entire sale consideration received at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. Since the assessee received the full amount at the time of the sale deed execution, it did not constitute an 'advance', and thus, Section 269SS was not violated. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings was due to sufficient cause, including illness, lack of familiarity with online processes, and reliance on an accountant. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce all relevant evidence.