Loading ITAT cases…
3,790 tribunal orders from the Cuttack bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.
A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.
A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.
A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.
For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.
When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.
An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.
An intimation generated under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be the basis for levying a fee under section 234E of the Act for periods prior to June 1, 2015, if the tax was deposited in time and only the TDS return was filed late.
Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.
The provision for leave encashment is allowable as a deduction only on an actual payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f).
An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.
A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.
Educational institutions are not commercial activities, and collecting fees for betterment and growth does not automatically disqualify them from being considered educational. Fees collected for value-added courses, training, or hostel facilities can be eligible for exemption under Section 11 if applied towards the institution's infrastructure.
Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which levies a fee for delayed filing of TDS statements, is intra vires the Constitution. However, this fee cannot be levied for statements filed prior to June 1, 2015.
An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.
An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.
An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal, as the Senior Departmental Representative did not object and the contents of the assessee's petition for condonation were not found to be false. The Tribunal noted that the order of the learned JCIT(A) was ex parte because the assessee failed to produce details and documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the learned JCIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard. The principle is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to be heard are paramount, especially when an ex parte order has been passed due to non-production of documents, and the assessee seeks a chance to rectify the oversight.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision was based on the observation that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte, and the assessee had failed to produce necessary details and documents before the lower appellate authority, nor had it properly represented its case. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an ex parte order passed due to the assessee's failure to appear or produce documents should be set aside and restored to the original authority for a fresh hearing, provided there is a reasonable cause for the failure and the assessee is willing to present its case. The operative direction is to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's books of account were rejected, the turnover as per the books was accepted by the AO. Given this, and the fact that purchases were accepted, the Tribunal found no justification for estimating the GP at a higher rate, as the AO had not provided reasons or comparable cases for such an estimation. Consequently, instead of estimating GP, the Tribunal directed that the net profit (NP) be estimated. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the net profit at 1.3% for all the years under appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee was within 2.5%, and an agreement between petroleum dealers and companies supports this. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's submission for a 2% NP. As the books were rejected, other additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) relying on those books were directed to be deleted, except for the estimation of profit. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposited could not be treated as unexplained cash credit, especially once the books of account were rejected, and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,11,69,337/- as unexplained cash credit was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of account were not rejected and the cash book clearly showed a cash balance of Rs. 1,38,51,454/- as on November 8, 2016. Since the assessee had this cash balance, they were entitled to deposit it in the bank. The Tribunal observed that the cash balance had been regularly increasing due to sales, not appearing suddenly. Therefore, the addition on this issue was deleted. Regarding the Rs. 19,50,000/- commission income, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed this income in its return and specified it as commission income. As no other sources were found by the AO, it could not be treated as undisclosed income. Consequently, the levy of tax under Section 115BBE on this amount was also deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's books of account were rejected, the turnover as per the books was accepted by the AO. Given this, and the fact that purchases were accepted, the Tribunal found no justification for estimating the GP at a higher rate, as the AO had not provided reasons or comparable cases for such an estimation. Consequently, instead of estimating GP, the Tribunal directed that the net profit (NP) be estimated. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the net profit at 1.3% for all the years under appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee was within 2.5%, and an agreement between petroleum dealers and companies supports this. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's submission for a 2% NP. As the books were rejected, other additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) relying on those books were directed to be deleted, except for the estimation of profit. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposited could not be treated as unexplained cash credit, especially once the books of account were rejected, and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee had an opening cash balance of Rs. 6,03,700/- as on March 31, 2016, and that the cash deposited during demonetization was not in SBN notes. However, it was observed that the assessee failed to provide full details before the lower authorities, leading the CIT(A) to confirm the addition without considering the assessee's submissions due to the lack of complete documentation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to produce all necessary details and documents. Consequently, the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee regarding the premium on the lease of land/shed. It noted that the Pr. CIT had previously considered this issue under Section 263 and accepted the assessee's claim that the premium is a capital receipt, as IDCO is not the owner of the plots and the ownership remains with the state government. Since the revenue did not demonstrate any change in facts from Assessment Year 2015-16 to the impugned Assessment Year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition, following the Pr. CIT's decision. Regarding CSR expenses, the Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a coordinate bench in a similar case for Assessment Year 2015-16. The coordinate bench had held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) is not applicable to the assessee as it is a corporation established by the state government as a trust and not registered under the Companies Act. However, as no details of the CSR expenses were filed before the lower authorities, the issue was set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination afresh, with sufficient opportunity to be given to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and dismissed on account of delay. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the Tribunal found acceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 842 & 843/CTK/2026 for AYs 2019-2020 & 2020-2021) were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the ITAT Bar Association, Cuttack, within sixty days. Non-payment would result in the CIT(A)'s orders being upheld. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 841/CTK/2026), since the quantum appeal for AY 2019-2020 was being restored, the penalty levied did not survive. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings again if deemed necessary after the quantum appeal's readjudication. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when sufficiently explained and not objected to by the revenue, should not preclude an assessee from presenting their case, especially when the appellate orders are ex-parte. The Tribunal's operative direction was to restore the appeals to the AO with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. The assessee's representative stated that the assessee possesses the registration under Section 12A of the Act. In light of this submission, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity to produce all necessary evidence to support its case. The principle here is that if a factual assertion is made by the assessee and the revenue suggests a procedural restoration for verification, the Tribunal may allow such a course to ensure proper adjudication. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal pronounced its order on 07/10/2026. The operative part of the order states that 'the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.' No specific findings on any issues, reasoning, or ratio decidendi are provided in the judgment. The extent of the 'partly allowed' relief or the specific grounds on which it was granted are not detailed. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. The assessee's AR prayed for the matter to be restored to the AO. Considering that details were not furnished before the AO, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify whether the transaction is liable for capital gains and to examine the levy of capital gains tax, accordingly computing the capital gains. The assessee is directed to furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The ratio of this decision is that where assessment and appellate orders are passed ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the assessee expresses readiness to furnish details, the matter can be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. It noted that the quantum appeal of the assessee was pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal held that this penalty appeal, which arose out of the said quantum appeal, should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to hear this appeal along with the pending quantum appeal (appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10127089) after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was condoned, as the reasons provided in the affidavit were not found to be false and the Revenue did not object. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the application for registration was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) due to the mention of a wrong section code. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to make the necessary correction by mentioning the correct code in Form No. 10A and to provide the details before the CIT(Exemption). The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects, such as incorrect section codes in application forms, should not lead to outright rejection without providing an opportunity for correction, especially when the error is bona fide and does not prejudice the revenue. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. It noted that Section 148A(a) requires prior approval from a specified authority if an enquiry is deemed necessary. The Assessing Officer's notings indicated information from the 'Insight portal' was available, and an enquiry was partly conducted. However, the necessary prior approval from the JCIT or Pr.CIT for conducting this enquiry was not obtained. Furthermore, the movement of files between Berhampur and Bhubaneswar on a single day, as recorded, appeared to be solely through computer clicks without physical verification of documents. The remarks of the JCIT did not adequately discuss the reasons for escaping assessment, merely referring to online notices and 'addressee left' remarks. Crucially, the approval granted by the PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar on 30.03.2024, lacked a signature in the order sheet, and the form under Section 151 for approval was not produced. Citing Section 282A(2) regarding authentication and the Delhi High Court's decision in ITO v. M/s Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court), the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of requisite approval and proper authentication, the reopening was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The additional grounds were allowed, and the consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment order was ex parte. Therefore, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its case. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the MAT credit claim itself but rather on the procedural defect of the ex parte orders. The ratio decidendi is that ex parte orders, especially where substantial benefits like MAT credit are denied without proper hearing, should be set aside and restored for proper adjudication. The operative direction was to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the assessment order, noting that the assessee had not produced all the required evidence before the AO to substantiate its claims. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted substantial relief based on evidence produced during remand proceedings. However, for the balance additions sustained, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore both issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submission regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) and the receipt from HUF was that the matter be restored for readjudication due to non-production of all evidence. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's claim regarding internal branch transfers and gold found, and the argument that CBDT Circular No. 1916 was not considered. The operative direction was to restore these issues to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A). It was held that while comparative rates are normally applied when books of account are rejected, the presence of incriminating materials found during the search made the adoption of comparative net profit rates unfair. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a flat net profit rate of 5% of the turnover be adopted. Furthermore, no further deductions in respect of depreciation or bank charges would be granted. This 5% rate is subject to the threshold of the return of income disclosed by the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the difference between the cash as per the cash book and the physical cash found during the survey. The assessee had produced the updated cash book before the Assessing Officer, and the AO had not pointed out any errors in it. The Tribunal noted that Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure, which arises from unexplained cash whose source is not disclosed. In this case, the cash balance was recorded in the books, and therefore, any expenditure could not be considered unexplained expenditure. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted on both grounds.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal of the assessee was still pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication, the present penalty appeal, which arises out of the said quantum appeal, should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that it is appropriate to have the penalty appeal heard and decided along with the main quantum appeal to ensure a comprehensive and consistent decision. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive adjudication would now take place at the CIT(A) level. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal's decision was procedural, leading to the restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The notice dated March 23, 2023, with a compliance date of March 30, 2023, did not provide the statutory minimum of seven clear days for the assessee to respond. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the coordinate bench in *Imran Ahmad* (supra), which in turn relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in *Satish Kumar* (supra). The High Court's decision stipulated that a minimum of seven clear days, excluding the date of issuance and the date of response, must be provided. As this was not met, the notice under Section 148A(b) was quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, which was based on the invalid notice, was also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.