ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal ruled that the identity and genuineness of the donors were established, particularly since the gift was from the assessee's father, whose cash book showed sufficient balance that was accepted in his own scrutiny assessment. It emphasized that a father's gift to his son for necessity does not require a specific "occasion" and that a cash gift, while raising suspicion, cannot be dismissed if genuineness and creditworthiness are proven. Therefore, the addition of Rs.70 lacs was unsustainable and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and furnish necessary documents, considering the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, granting the assessee a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the dispute required proper examination and verification of facts at the assessment stage, which was lacking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh de-novo adjudication with adequate opportunity to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed on the assessee for seeking an unjustified adjournment.

The Tribunal held that while processing returns under section 143(1), the AO's scope is limited to verifying completeness of details, not examining other conditions, which would necessitate a scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s direction to satisfy other conditions, asserting that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 80JJAA(2) and the original disallowance by the AO is deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted a comprehensive 206-page Paper Book at the appellate stage, which could have been presented to the CIT (E). Taking a lenient view and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT (E).

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal, which was unopposed by the Departmental Representative. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the 497-day delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating the merits or considering the assessee's hardship. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh de-novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to file an application for exemption from advance tax payment, subject to depositing Rs. 3,000 as costs.

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 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, referring to its lead order in a connected case, rejected the AO's presumption of missing zeros, finding it to be without concrete evidence and contrary to statutory presumptions under Sec. 292C. It noted that the assessee and parties confirmed the original figures and the quantum of unexplained investment was lower than estimated by the AO. Consequently, the additions for unexplained investment and consequential interest income were deleted for all assessment years.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the assessment back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment in light of the additional evidences. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 68 was not based on any incriminating material found during search, but on investigation inputs and an alleged entry operator's statement. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed that for completed assessments under section 153A, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. As no such material was presented by the Revenue, the addition and the resultant assessment order were deemed unsustainable in law and quashed. The same findings were applied to the other appeals as the issues were identical.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for deduction under Section 80IC, as the machinery was new and directly delivered to the Baddi unit. It also upheld the assessee's method of allocating common expenses on a unit-wise basis.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was engaged in the business of jewellery resale and the surrender was due to valuation differences, the amount should be taxed as normal business income. The provisions of Section 115BBE were deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal decided that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was valid. However, the Tribunal found that the additions based on the seized diary and land plotting projects were not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal decided that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was valid. However, the Tribunal found that the additions based on the seized diary and land plotting projects were not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal decided that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was valid. However, the Tribunal found that the additions based on the seized diary and land plotting projects were not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal decided that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was valid. However, the Tribunal found that the additions based on the seized diary and land plotting projects were not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal decided that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was valid. However, the Tribunal found that the additions based on the seized diary and land plotting projects were not substantiated with sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, which is contrary to established legal principles requiring adjudication on facts and evidence. Acknowledging the assessee's claim of being an illiterate agriculturist and the availability of new evidence like Fard Girdawari, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to submit all necessary documents for a de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal deleted the additions for unexplained investment and expenditure, ruling that uncorroborated loose sheets and retracted statements could not be the sole basis for such additions. For AY 2016-17, the disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted as the assessee had sufficient owned funds to make interest-free advances, implying borrowed funds were not diverted for this purpose.

The Tribunal deleted the additions for unexplained investment and expenditure, ruling that uncorroborated loose sheets and retracted statements could not be the sole basis for such additions. For AY 2016-17, the disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted as the assessee had sufficient owned funds to make interest-free advances, implying borrowed funds were not diverted for this purpose.

The Tribunal, referring to its lead order in a connected case, rejected the AO's presumption of missing zeros, finding it to be without concrete evidence and contrary to statutory presumptions under Sec. 292C. It noted that the assessee and parties confirmed the original figures and the quantum of unexplained investment was lower than estimated by the AO. Consequently, the additions for unexplained investment and consequential interest income were deleted for all assessment years.

The Tribunal found that the agricultural income itself was not disputed by the lower authorities. It held that the mechanical estimation of agricultural expenses at a flat rate of 40%, without considering the specific nature of long-term crops like poplar and safeda which require minimal expenditure, was not justified. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) based solely on estimation could not be sustained.

The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. On merits, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 61,93,000/- (cash deposits) as explained but sustained Rs. 20,81,000/- (claimed as trade debtor receipts) due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal, however, found that the issue regarding the Rs. 20,81,000/- was not comprehensively examined and remanded this specific matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification with directions to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit was based on mere technical grounds. Since the interest income had already been offered to tax by the legal heir, the corresponding TDS credit should also be granted to avoid unjustified partial acceptance of the transaction. The Tribunal directed the CPC to grant the impugned TDS credit to the assessee and revise the tax demand, deeming it unfeasible to require the deductor to revise TDS statements for an old assessment year.

The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to fully participate and provide all necessary details. It also mandated that the assessee commit to providing free education to at least 20 students as part of its charitable activities.

The Tribunal, referring to its lead order in a connected case, rejected the AO's presumption of missing zeros, finding it to be without concrete evidence and contrary to statutory presumptions under Sec. 292C. It noted that the assessee and parties confirmed the original figures and the quantum of unexplained investment was lower than estimated by the AO. Consequently, the additions for unexplained investment and consequential interest income were deleted for all assessment years.

The Tribunal deleted the additions for unexplained investment and expenditure, ruling that uncorroborated loose sheets and retracted statements could not be the sole basis for such additions. For AY 2016-17, the disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted as the assessee had sufficient owned funds to make interest-free advances, implying borrowed funds were not diverted for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 68 was not based on any incriminating material found during search, but on investigation inputs and an alleged entry operator's statement. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed that for completed assessments under section 153A, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. As no such material was presented by the Revenue, the addition and the resultant assessment order were deemed unsustainable in law and quashed. The same findings were applied to the other appeals as the issues were identical.

The Tribunal, referring to its lead order in a connected case, rejected the AO's presumption of missing zeros, finding it to be without concrete evidence and contrary to statutory presumptions under Sec. 292C. It noted that the assessee and parties confirmed the original figures and the quantum of unexplained investment was lower than estimated by the AO. Consequently, the additions for unexplained investment and consequential interest income were deleted for all assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 68 was not based on any incriminating material found during search, but on investigation inputs and an alleged entry operator's statement. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed that for completed assessments under section 153A, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. As no such material was presented by the Revenue, the addition and the resultant assessment order were deemed unsustainable in law and quashed. The same findings were applied to the other appeals as the issues were identical.

The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to fully participate and provide all necessary details. It also mandated that the assessee commit to providing free education to at least 20 students as part of its charitable activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, applying principles of natural justice, admitted the appeal. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to present and prove its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, referring to its lead order in a connected case, rejected the AO's presumption of missing zeros, finding it to be without concrete evidence and contrary to statutory presumptions under Sec. 292C. It noted that the assessee and parties confirmed the original figures and the quantum of unexplained investment was lower than estimated by the AO. Consequently, the additions for unexplained investment and consequential interest income were deleted for all assessment years.