ITAT Cuttack Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish details to the AO and evidence to the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was an ad hoc disallowance without pointing out specific faults in claimed expenses. The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowances are not permissible and, in the absence of specific disallowance, the ad hoc disallowance of 50% of expenses is liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal filed was indeed a duplicate of an earlier appeal. Considering the submission and the application made on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal treated the duplicate appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish details to the AO and produce evidence before the CIT(A). To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the plausible reasons provided by the assessee and the revenue not disputing it. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunities to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not furnish necessary details to the AO or produce evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, to do justice, the appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not represented itself before the lower authorities and had sought adjournment previously. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish details and evidence before both the AO and the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee's reasons for delay, such as lack of proper advice and knowledge, were not substantiated. The assessee's accounts had been audited, and previous assessments and appeals were completed. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities to represent their case before the lower authorities but failed to do so. However, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to furnish details and evidence before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeal issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee's books were rejected by the AO, no further addition could be made. The balance sheet prepared from the bank account was also considered part of the rejected books. Since the AO had already estimated the income at 8%, no further addition was warranted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted that fresh evidence was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not considered, and the appeal was dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) had upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS on professional charges.

The Tribunal noted that an appeal against a Section 143(1) intimation is not maintainable once a Section 154 order has been passed, as the 143(1) order merges with the 154 order. The CIT(A) failed to consider this fact.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Gujarat High Court's precedent that only embedded profit, not total sales, can be added. While the CIT(A)'s application of GP rates was not fundamentally faulted, the Tribunal found them to be on the lower side for undisclosed sales.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 269SS of the Act as the transaction was covered by Section 269ST. The penalty levied under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS was therefore not applicable.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 4,00,000/- withdrawn by the assessee and Rs. 2,50,000/- as per government prescription (total Rs. 6,50,000/-) could be considered as explained. The remaining balance of Rs. 3,50,000/- was treated as unexplained income, and the AO was directed to compute tax at the normal rate.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble 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 sections 271D and 271E. Following this precedent and decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that since no satisfaction was recorded, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed.

For AY 2018-19, the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing an appeal, hence the appeal was dismissed. For AY 2019-20, the Assessing Officer was directed to rework the undisclosed income by estimating income on the suppressed turnover at 3.5%.

The Tribunal noted that while there was a conflicting decision from the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of recording satisfaction, coordinate benches and High Courts had followed the Supreme Court's decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City, which mandates recording satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E. Since no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO, the penalties were deemed to be invalid.

The assessee did not produce the cash book to prove the transactions. However, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the AO for re-adjudication. The AO must verify the cash book to ascertain if the cash deposited was available.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order by the AO. To ensure justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The CIT(A) held that addition should be made only to the extent of estimated profit embedded in sales, applying GP rates of 1.64% for AY 2018-19 and 1.47% for AY 2019-20.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication, with an opportunity granted to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that both the orders from the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the ITAT Bar Association within 60 days.

The Tribunal held that estimation of income cannot be done without rejecting the books of accounts, as per established legal principles. The AO had not invoked Section 145 of the Income Tax Act nor had rejected the assessee's books of accounts, rendering the estimation unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) did not grant the assessee the mandatory seven clear days for response, violating the provisions of the Act and various judicial pronouncements. Following the decisions of the Jharkhand High Court and other coordinate benches, the Tribunal quashed the notice u/s.148A(b).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it did not provide the assessee with the mandatory minimum of seven clear days to respond. This defect was found to be in violation of the Act and established legal precedents.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower orders.

The Tribunal condoned the 68-day delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for hearing. The Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT was mechanical and without application of mind. This was based on precedents from the Delhi High Court and the Jurisdictional High Court, which were also affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that treating the entire gross receipts as income without considering claimed expenses and without verification, as done by the CPC in the intimation under Section 143(1), is not permissible. The adjustment made was outside the preview of Section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the facts. It was found that the property purchased in CDA, Cuttack was indeed a residential house. The second property, at Janpath, Bhubaneswar, was admitted to be commercial, as evidenced by rental income and corporation tax paid. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not own more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted by the JCIT were mechanical and without application of mind, citing multiple decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the JCIT had granted numerous approvals in a single day for multiple assessment years, which was not permissible. Consequently, the approvals were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT was invalid because it was done mechanically without application of mind, a common issue across multiple assessment years for several assessees. This was based on decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Delhi High Court, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given multiple opportunities during the original assessment but failed to cooperate and provide necessary documents. The PCIT, under section 263, directed the AO to re-examine certain issues after the assessee's lack of cooperation deprived the AO of proper verification.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's ownership of 40 acres of agricultural land and income from tractor plowing. Considering these facts, the Tribunal decided to grant partial relief. For AY 2014-15, 50% of the addition (Rs.3,00,000) was treated as agriculture receipts, reducing the addition to Rs.5,00,000. For AY 2015-16, 50% of the addition (Rs.1,50,000) was treated as agriculture receipts, reducing the addition to Rs.1,28,000.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee owned 40 acres of agricultural land and derived income from tractor plowing, suggesting agricultural operations. The Tribunal granted a 50% relief on the additions made.

The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are rejected, no further addition can be made on account of demonetized currency deposits, especially when these deposits are part of the turnover. The addition made under section 69(A) of the Act was deleted. However, if the deletion resulted in assessed income below the returned income, it was not permissible.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents and had not complied with notices from CIT(A). To ensure justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication with an opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000. Non-payment would result in confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the assessee provided a plausible affidavit. The Tribunal held that the error in valuation was rectifiable and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the new valuation report and grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents during assessment and also failed to comply with notices from CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to plausible reasons provided by the assessee. The appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the issues of the appeal were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. All issues were restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for readjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. This restoration is contingent upon the assessee paying specified costs to the ITAT Bar Association within 60 days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders would be confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee and the lack of serious objection from the Revenue. While the assessee was unable to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard, and directed the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 15 lakhs addition was unsustainable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd., as TDS was deducted and paid, and directors had filed their returns. The Rs. 52,000 house rent disallowance was also deleted as it was below the threshold limit for TDS deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the reasons provided were found to be valid and the revenue did not raise serious objections. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities due to non-compliance and inability to produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the assessee's prayer and the reasons provided in the affidavits. However, due to past non-compliance, the issues in all appeals were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.