ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee not being aware of the reassessment completion, as communications were sent to an erstwhile tax consultant. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 by the JAO was invalid, following the High Court's decision in TVS Credit Service Ltd. Therefore, the notice and consequential proceedings were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law, as it contravened the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and the e-Assessment Scheme, which mandates issuance of such notices through a faceless mechanism. The assessment order passed pursuant to this invalid notice was therefore considered null and void.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that they were not properly guided and faced disruptions due to COVID-19, leading to their failure to present their case adequately before the lower authorities. Granting an opportunity in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee, including Board resolutions and valuation reports, were essential for a proper adjudication of the issue concerning the valuation date for fixing the price of rights shares. Therefore, these evidences were taken on record.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the timing of its issuance after the stipulated date. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was not supported by corroborative evidence, relying solely on third-party statements.

The Tribunal acknowledged the reasonable and bonafide cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, as explained by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the FAA with directions to condone the delay and reconsider the issue of delayed Form-10B filing.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of proper guidance and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice. The quantum appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, while the penalty appeals were dismissed as consequential.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition merely based on a statement without corroborative evidence incriminating the assessee. Since the sales were not rejected and the books of accounts were not impounded, an ad-hoc addition for commission could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the party-wise details submitted by the assessee indicated that payments made to each party were below the threshold limits prescribed for TDS. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these payments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing reasonable cause and Supreme Court precedent. It held that the CIT(A) should consider the delay condonation and the assessee's submissions regarding the wrong PAN and source of deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing reasonable cause and Supreme Court precedent. It held that the CIT(A) should consider the delay condonation and the assessee's submissions regarding the wrong PAN and source of deposits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that they were not properly guided and faced disruptions due to COVID-19, leading to their failure to present their case adequately before the lower authorities. Granting an opportunity in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that they were not properly guided and faced disruptions due to COVID-19, leading to their failure to present their case adequately before the lower authorities. Granting an opportunity in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that they were not properly guided and faced disruptions due to COVID-19, leading to their failure to present their case adequately before the lower authorities. Granting an opportunity in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that they were not properly guided and faced disruptions due to COVID-19, leading to their failure to present their case adequately before the lower authorities. Granting an opportunity in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had discarded the assessee's documents without reason and relied on un-confronted information from the Investigation Wing. It was also observed that M/s. Barbrik was not proven to be 'struck-off' during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the basis for the AO's addition under Section 69C was considered arbitrary and untenable.

The CIT(A) restored the issue of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation loss for fresh examination by the AO, but left the issue of taxability of sundry creditors unadjudicated. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's direction did not prejudice the department and found no merit in the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) must be followed by a reasonable estimation. However, the AO's estimation relied on the net profit rate from the rejected books, which is contradictory and legally unsustainable. The extrapolation of disclosed income for twelve months was considered presumptive and unsupported by corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO was incorrect in denying the deduction under Section 80IA against the interest income. The interest income, even if from other sources, is part of the gross total income against which the deduction is permissible.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee contended that bank transactions in his individual name pertained to businesses carried on by the HUF, supported by documentary evidence. Similar additions had been deleted for AY 2017-18, and for AY 2011-12, the matter was restored to the AO for verification. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for limited verification of bank accounts.

The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not consider the remand report which indicated sales on proximate dates and withdrawals towards statutory duties. The Tribunal found that the FAA omitted to consider bank statements, invoices, and sales register extracts.

The Tribunal noted that the faceless scheme, notified under Section 151A of the Act, mandates that notices under Section 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Act must be issued by the Faceless Mechanism. Since the impugned notice dated 22.03.2024 was issued by the JAO, it was deemed invalid and bad in law, violating the principles of Rule of Law.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal was filed with a delay and no application for condonation of delay was filed. Since no one appeared for the hearing, the appeal was dismissed in limine for not filing the necessary petition to condone the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on 06.04.2022, despite the faceless scheme notified by the Central Government on 29.03.2022, which mandates notices to be issued through the Faceless Mechanism. Citing various High Court decisions, particularly the jurisdictional Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law, violating the 'Rule of Law'. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the assessment order were deemed illegal and null.

The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. Regarding the substantial delays before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, considering the assessee's need for proper professional support and the possibility of a genuine case on merits, decided to remit the appeals back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the timing of its issuance after the stipulated date. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was not supported by corroborative evidence, relying solely on third-party statements.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the timing of its issuance after the stipulated date. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was not supported by corroborative evidence, relying solely on third-party statements.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the timing of its issuance after the stipulated date. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was not supported by corroborative evidence, relying solely on third-party statements.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the timing of its issuance after the stipulated date. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was not supported by corroborative evidence, relying solely on third-party statements.

The Tribunal condoned a 12-day delay in filing the appeal and noted that a recent amendment to Section 80G(5) allows applications to be filed at any time after commencement of activities. Citing a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application under the amended provision.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. had ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 were invalid if not in accordance with the faceless scheme. Similar views were expressed by other High Courts. The Tribunal found the JAO's notice to be illegal and bad in law, vitiating the reopening of assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. Regarding the substantial delays before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, considering the assessee's need for proper professional support and the possibility of a genuine case on merits, decided to remit the appeals back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had asked for details regarding cash deposits and section 54F exemption, but no satisfactory explanation was offered, nor was evidence of reinvestment produced. Although the assessee submitted written submissions to the CIT(A), no reasons were recorded for these in the impugned order.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) partly allowed the appeal, holding that only 50% of the Rs. 8,50,000/- deposit needed to be added as unexplained income, reducing the addition to Rs. 4,25,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the facts and legal precedents, further reduced the addition by 50% of the amount sustained by the FAA, deleting Rs. 2,12,500/- and sustaining Rs. 2,12,500/- under Section 69. The Tribunal also directed that tax on the sustained amount should be calculated at 30% as per Section 115BBE, following a Madras High Court judgment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing reasonable cause and Supreme Court precedent. It held that the CIT(A) should consider the delay condonation and the assessee's submissions regarding the wrong PAN and source of deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing reasonable cause and Supreme Court precedent. It held that the CIT(A) should consider the delay condonation and the assessee's submissions regarding the wrong PAN and source of deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. Regarding the substantial delays before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, considering the assessee's need for proper professional support and the possibility of a genuine case on merits, decided to remit the appeals back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law because it was issued contrary to the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and the e-Assessment Scheme, 2022. The Scheme mandates that such notices must be issued through a faceless mechanism. Therefore, the reopening of assessment and the subsequent assessment order are vitiated.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 654 days, despite the assessee citing medical issues and submitting supporting records. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that multiple grounds of appeal were filed without leave, and the original order was recalled. The assessee is pressing only grounds 6 and 8, which relate to the set-off of interest expenditure against interest income. The Tribunal referred to its own previous orders where identical issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in liminie due to a 384-day delay in filing. The Tribunal, however, found sufficient reason for the delay, condoned it, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the pendency of the rectification petition. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the claim of the bank account belonging to the HUF requires verification. Citing previous tribunal orders for AY 2011-12, the matter was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed after a considerable delay and that the petition for condonation of delay was also rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appeal to be not maintainable.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to lack of explanation and insufficient submissions. The tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and, to meet the ends of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the 52-day delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.JCIT(A) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay before the CCIT u/s.119(2)(b) and the outcome was awaited.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing, but the assessee failed to appear or submit any response. The assessee's representative submitted that they were unaware of the notices due to not checking the income tax portal and email.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid and bad in law because it was issued after the notification of the faceless scheme, which mandated such notices to be issued through the Faceless Mechanism. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. and other High Courts.

The Tribunal noted that substantial additions were made and partly deleted based on explanations relating to transactions between the assessee and the trust. The core issue involved the identification and reconciliation of these transactions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted major additions without a detailed verification or remand report.