ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2026

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Code, the present appeals against the assessee could not continue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable, with a provision for either party to seek revival if circumstances change in the future.

The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-verify the land's distance from municipal limits, examine the claim of 'Biana' (advance) for cash deposits, and apply cost indexation if the land is ultimately found to be a capital asset.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's repeated non-compliance during both assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering principles of natural justice and the substantial nature of the addition, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate, furnish all necessary evidences, and deposit ₹10,000/- as cost to the PGI Poor Patients Welfare Fund within one month, failing which adverse inference may be drawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2024, reintroduced Section 251(1)(a) allowing the CIT(A) to set aside assessments for fresh verification of records, especially where natural justice principles were violated. The ITAT concluded that the remand ensures the assessment is based on actual evidence rather than estimates and found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s approach.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully invested the net sales consideration of Rs.115.18 Lacs by 30-12-2014, fulfilling the investment requirement for Section 54F. It observed that delays in obtaining necessary permissions were beyond the assessee's control and that Section 54F should be construed liberally. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54F, while confirming an addition of Rs.84,940.

The Tribunal held that the claim for TCS credit, reflected in Form 26AS, was not a fresh claim but arose from statutory records, and its denial on technical grounds would lead to unjust enrichment. Citing the Supreme Court's Goetze (India) Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate authorities have wide powers to entertain such claims. Therefore, it set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the Assessing Officer/CPC to grant the TCS credit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the Gross Profit rate at 6% on the alleged bogus purchases, affirming that documentation was provided but complete onus was not discharged. Regarding the Rs. 12.60 Lacs addition, the Tribunal confirmed its deletion by the CIT(A), finding no corroboration or evidence linking the WhatsApp chat between two independent parties to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper factual verification regarding capital gains on jointly owned property and adherence to natural justice principles. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperative conduct during earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to unfulfilled document requirements, while the assessee contended that no notice for further evidence was received. To ensure natural justice and provide an adequate opportunity to be heard, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a de-novo order, with the assessee directed to cooperate by providing necessary documents.

The Tribunal, considering natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order. The CIT(E) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is in turn directed to cooperate by filing necessary documents and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Code, the present appeals against the assessee could not continue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable, with a provision for either party to seek revival if circumstances change in the future.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Code, the present appeals against the assessee could not continue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable, with a provision for either party to seek revival if circumstances change in the future.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Code, the present appeals against the assessee could not continue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable, with a provision for either party to seek revival if circumstances change in the future.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Code, the present appeals against the assessee could not continue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable, with a provision for either party to seek revival if circumstances change in the future.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer mechanically invoked section 144 without duly considering the assessee's replies, violating principles of natural justice. It also noted that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order or properly adjudicate the appeal under section 250(6). Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, especially since the matter involved a substantial addition under section 69A requiring proper factual examination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for their conduct.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable due to the inconsistent and poorly communicated hearing dates in the notices. The significant addition to the tax liability was also considered disproportionate to any alleged negligence.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, making them unsustainable. The AO had incorrectly treated the assessment as a regular assessment under Section 143(3), despite the original return having attained finality, and the time limit for regular assessment under Section 143(2) had expired.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on incorrect facts as the assessee had filed a return. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to discharge the onus under Section 68 and that the pre-operative expenses were reflected in audited books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) applied their mind to the facts. Crucially, the bank account was opened on 29.12.2012, which falls outside the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, deposits in this account could not be added for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the assessee's record and the Income Tax Return, passing a non-speaking order. The deposits in the bank account represented the sale consideration of the property, and the re-opening of assessment was not well-founded as the AO did not have complete details.

The Tribunal found no logic in the AO's arbitrary selection of Rs.42 lacs as sale proceeds, especially when the assessee's turnover was significantly higher and no defects were found in the books of account.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on incorrect facts as the assessee had filed a return. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to discharge the onus under Section 68 and that the pre-operative expenses were reflected in audited books of accounts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order on the same day the assessee's written submissions were due, without considering them. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the sellers and the source of funds. The Tribunal noted that the AO had gathered substantial evidence, including statements from accommodation entry providers like Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, who admitted to providing bogus LTCG entries against commission. These statements were corroborated by seized documents. The Tribunal found that the share transactions were conducted through paper companies, and the prices were manipulated to generate bogus LTCG. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for the sale proceeds and the disallowance of commission expenses under Section 69C were upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions were sham and not genuine investment activities. Consequently, the exemption under Section 10(38) was rightly denied. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not treat transactions as bogus solely on suspicion without tangible material. The transactions were supported by contract notes, demat statements, and banking channels, and the investee companies were not declared sham by SEBI.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not treat transactions as bogus solely on suspicion without tangible material. The transactions were supported by contract notes, demat statements, and banking channels, and the investee companies were not declared sham by SEBI.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the lower authorities failed to properly examine the evidence and submissions. The CIT(A)'s order also contained factual inaccuracies. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It deleted additions related to unsecured loans, finding them genuine and repaid. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the approval under Section 153D, finding it was not mechanical.

The Tribunal considered the arguments of both the Assessee and the Revenue regarding the legal issue. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly invoked Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as the assessment order was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not wrong.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was reasonable and plausible. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained books of account, had a substantial turnover, and the deposits were within the range of business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition on account of suppressed sales by comparing the assessee's business model with a franchisee, finding it not comparable. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained expenditure and cash found, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning sound.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It deleted additions related to unsecured loans, finding them genuine and repaid. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the approval under Section 153D, finding it was not mechanical.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal instead of restoring it to the AO as per the earlier directions. The Tribunal admitted the appeal and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the penalty issue.

The Tribunal found that the additions were sourced from earlier cash withdrawals and agricultural rental income. The benefit of agricultural rent and earlier cash withdrawals were considered and accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is expected to adjudicate issues on merits, and dismissing an appeal solely for non-prosecution is not in consonance with the Act. However, the assessee also lacked diligence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not sustainable. Once the Assessing Officer had reopened the case, examined all documents, and accepted the returned income without pointing out shortcomings, it was not open for the CIT to revisit the issue under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition on account of suppressed sales by comparing the assessee's business model with a franchisee, finding it not comparable. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained expenditure and cash found, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning sound.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the present appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. As there were no exceptions applicable, the appeal was found to be not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits, especially when sufficient cause for delay is shown. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal found that while the formal allotment of the plot was on October 23, 2015, the initial booking amount was paid on January 6, 2011, and substantial payments were made before March 2015. The Tribunal opined that the allotment was merely an improvement of an existing right, and the right/interest in the plot was created well before the allotment date, relating back to the initial booking. The definition of capital asset under Section 2(14) is wide enough to include rights vested in the assessee to acquire property at the time of initial payment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all supporting documents and computations, and the AO had raised a specific query which was duly responded to. The AO accepted the assessee's claim with due application of mind, and the view taken by the AO was one of the possible views and not perverse. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329), which distinguished between a lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, stating that even in cases of inadequate inquiry, the CIT is not entitled to revise if the AO has conducted an inquiry and arrived at a possible view. The original assessment order passed by the AO was restored.

The Tribunal held that the issue of sundry creditors required fresh verification by the AO, setting aside the addition. Regarding bonus expenses, the Tribunal found that factual aspects needed proper verification by the AO, restoring the matter for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the assessee failed to disclose material facts. The claim of FDRs as application of income was also not accepted, aligning with a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the net profit rate applied by the CIT(A) was excessive and directed the application of a 5% net profit rate on unaccounted receipts, considering the seized records.

The Tribunal held that the net profit rate applied by the CIT(A) was excessive and directed the application of a 5% net profit rate on unaccounted receipts, considering the seized records.

The Tribunal held that the net profit rate applied by the CIT(A) was excessive and directed the application of a 5% net profit rate on unaccounted receipts, considering the seized records.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the assessee failed to disclose material facts. The claim of FDRs as application of income was also not accepted, aligning with a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus for unsecured loans by providing documentary evidence, and the AO failed to dislodge it. However, the Tribunal found no basis for the assessee's claim of mechanical approval under Section 153D, concurring with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus for unsecured loans by providing documentary evidence, and the AO failed to dislodge it. However, the Tribunal found no basis for the assessee's claim of mechanical approval under Section 153D, concurring with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the assessee failed to disclose material facts. The claim of FDRs as application of income was also not accepted, aligning with a Special Bench decision.