ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank account deposits were largely related to her spouse's petrol pump business and had been offered to income tax. The lower authorities had not properly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all relevant documents.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the CBDT Notification No.2/2024 regarding the time limit for verification of income tax returns. It was clarified that if e-verification/ITR-V is submitted within 30 days of uploading, the date of uploading is considered the date of furnishing.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding that for unabated assessment cases, additions can only be made based on incriminating material collected during the search. In this case, the additions were based on financial statements and ledger copies, and no incriminating material was found. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that jurisdiction under section 153A was not available as no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, jurisdiction under section 153A requires that the impugned material must be collected during the search and must be incriminating. In this case, the additions were made based on financial statements and ledger copies gathered post-search, and no incriminating material was found. The assessee was not provided with seized documents despite requests, and the AO failed to show any specific incriminating material.

The Bench granted the permission to withdraw the appeal as sought by the assessee. Since the D.R. had no objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present clear grounds of appeal regarding the correct figures for unexplained investment, showing confusion and a disparity in the amounts presented at different stages. Due to these defective grounds, the Tribunal could not proceed with a proper adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had provided several opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal examined the applicability of various methods for determining arm's length price (ALP), particularly the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. It considered decisions from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court regarding the determination of 'market value' for Section 80-IA deductions in the context of electricity transfer. The Tribunal found that for regions where an internal CUP was available (e.g., supply to UP Power Corporation Ltd.), it was rightly accepted as ALP. For other regions, the Tribunal considered external CUPs, referencing rates from distribution companies. The Tribunal also noted that the IEX rates were not comparable.

The Tribunal held that Section 269SS applies to loans and advances, not to cash received as sale consideration at the time of registering the sale deed. The correct provisions for cash transactions in immovable property exceeding Rs.2 lakhs are Section 269ST, attracting penalty under Section 271DA. Since the penalty was incorrectly levied under Section 271D, it was deleted, following a similar ruling by a coordinate bench.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not substantiated their claim with documents. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. It was held that when an authority has the power to grant registration, it also has the power to condone delay, which is in line with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application was rejected for non-representation. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication with an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee could not substantiate their claim with relevant documents. However, to provide a fair opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's representative did not appear in the uniform prescribed in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for virtual mode appearances. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and evidence before the AO. The issues are remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to pay will result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not substantiate their claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice and considering the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was granted subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each.

The Tribunal held that when an authority has the power to grant registration, it also has the power to condone delay. It is a principle of natural justice to grant an opportunity of being heard before rejecting an application on grounds of delay. Therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(E) for granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the delay and file the correct form.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the contention of the assessee was not acceptable due to the lack of documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated its claim before the lower authorities due to a lack of opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and evidence before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days, admitted the appeal, and granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO. This opportunity is subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within sixty days. If the cost is not paid, the order of the CIT(A) will stand confirmed.

The tribunal condoned the delay of 102 days. The tribunal observed that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to lack of documents, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not substantiated its claim with documents before the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice and the request for an opportunity, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more chance to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 404 days, admitting the appeal for hearing. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer (AO) by restoring the issues to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent their case before the AO.

The Tribunal held that denying the benefit of Sections 11 & 13 and disallowing the entire expenditure as application, without recomputing income under business head, is not permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the intimation under Section 143(1) was quashed.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure claimed as application in an intimation under section 143(1) is not permissible. If the benefit of sections 11 & 13 is to be denied, the income should be recomputed under the head business income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160 days and admitted the appeal. Since the assessee could not substantiate its claim with documents before lower authorities, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A) by restoring the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The appeal was admitted for hearing after condoning the delay of 132 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity. The tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claim, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that for levying penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, it is essential for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City, the Tribunal found that no such satisfaction was recorded in the present case.

The Tribunal noted that the Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee appeared through virtual mode but was not in the prescribed uniform. Based on this procedural lapse, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO. The issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. Considering the rival submissions and the fact that the assessee could not substantiate its claim, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO.

The Tribunal noted that while the application was filed late, the authority granting registration also has the power to condone delays. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, it is important to provide an opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay before rejecting the application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding the reasons plausible. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not adequately substantiated its claim before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City held that satisfaction must be recorded by the AO before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E. Following this precedent and decisions of various High Courts, the Tribunal found that no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO in this case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant documents before the CIT(A). Hence, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied after the due date but before the expiry of provisional registration. It was held that the power to condone delay is available with the authority, and principles of natural justice require granting an opportunity to be heard before rejecting an application on grounds of delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer (AO) to substantiate its claim. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 35 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the AO, restoring the issues for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting both appeals for hearing. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that if the AO doubted the source of capital introduced by the partners, the addition should have been made in the hands of the partners, not in the hands of the assessee firm. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act was not permissible as it taxed entire receipts as total income without assessing business income and without considering the necessary adjustments prescribed under the Act.

The Tribunal held that the differential amount of Rs. 1,81,42,395/- represented expenses for tanker and lorries, as shown in the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The reconciliation details were available with the Assessing Officer and showed payments through various modes, including bank and fleet card, and also shortages. The Tribunal found no error to warrant an estimated addition for suppressed turnover.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under section 143(1) denying exemption was unsustainable because the assessee, an educational institution, had filed Form 10BB along with the return before the due date for AY 2017-18. The stricter requirement for filing Form 10B/10BB one month prior to the return came into effect only from April 1, 2021, and was not applicable to the impugned assessment year. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that taxing entire receipts as income without proper adjustment or considering the denial of benefits u/s.11 & 13 is impermissible under an intimation u/s.143(1) and consequently quashed the intimations.