ITAT Cuttack Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, justice-oriented approach for condoning delays, prioritizing substance over form.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for the assessee to represent their case, but the assessee failed to comply with most notices. Despite this, the order was passed considering some details. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue and restore it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with notices.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the facts and circumstances and the interest of justice. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered all issues on merits and had not followed the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of over 9 months, emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach for condoning delays, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. It held that the CIT(A) was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence and directed the CIT(A) to readjudicate the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 and the consequential penalty u/s 270A on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted reconciliation of amounts and deducted TDS where applicable. The Tribunal inclined to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach, condoning the delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording reasonable opportunity. The assessee claims to have reconciliation for interest paid and TDS deducted. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but they were not complied with. However, considering the assessee's prayer to restore the matter and cooperate, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were reasonable and bonafide, and should have been considered by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating on merits due to the delay.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not deliberate and condoned the delay of more than 9 months. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits, including the consequential penalty.

The Tribunal held that the Addl/JCIT(A) was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays, prioritizing substance over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for delay were plausible and bonafide, constituting a reasonable cause. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay to provide substantial justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, justice-oriented approach for condoning delays. Technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, especially when the delay is not deliberate.

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay plausible and not false. Considering the principles of natural justice and the taxpayer's contribution, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity to represent the case on merits before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have sufficient evidence which was not considered by the CIT(A). To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention in the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, which mandates a liberal and justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal held that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, especially when the delay is not deliberate.

The tribunal noted that no condonation petition was filed explaining the delay in filing the appeal and multiple opportunities were given to the assessee. The tribunal set aside the order of the Id JCIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the Id JCIT(A) with directions.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority was wrong in presuming deliberate negligence or malafide intention for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, justice-oriented approach, prioritizing substance over technicalities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, finding them null and void. It was held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent verification, relied solely on a discredited report (Justice M.B. Shah Commission), and the reopening was barred by limitation and failed to meet the conditions of the proviso to Section 147. Additionally, the deletion of the disallowance of expenses under Section 37(1) was upheld as no statutory violation was proven against the assessee for incurring those expenses, and the penalty appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was null and void as the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report was not credible evidence due to violations of natural justice and lack of independent inquiry by the AO. The reopening was also time-barred under the proviso to Section 147, as no material facts were suppressed. The additions for alleged illegal mining and the disallowance of expenses under Section 37(1) were deleted, as the production figures tallied with records and no statutory violations were proven. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them null and void as the AO had blindly relied on the M.B. Shah Commission report without independent verification, despite the Supreme Court discrediting the report for violating natural justice. The reopening was also found to be barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 147, as there was no failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of both the addition for suppressed production and the disallowance of expenses, citing similar jurisdictional High Court judgments which also dismissed revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of shares was not thoroughly examined by the AO and CIT(A). The purchase of the residential house was not completed in the assessee's name, nor was it directly purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the conditions for Sections 54 and 54F were not met.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 182 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. Considering the assessee's status as a small-time trader, the Tribunal reduced the estimated net income from 5% to 2%.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued several notices, but there was no response from the assessee. However, in the interest of justice, the tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all documentary evidence and pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the ITAT Bar Association.

The Tribunal condoned the delays and admitted the appeals for hearing. While restoring the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee due to non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days, granted the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, and restored the issues to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not heard on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents and had not complied with notices from the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication with an adequate opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Non-payment of costs would result in confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal restored the issues in the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each was imposed on the assessee, to be paid within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's reasons for the delay. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the mandatory requirement for a merchant banker's valuation came into effect later than the impugned assessment year. It was held that the DCF method, used by a qualified chartered accountant, was an acceptable method and the rejection of the assessee's valuation by the lower authorities was not based on proper examination.

The assessee's representative requested that the issues be restored to the AO's file for readjudication, allowing the assessee to produce all details. The CIT DR did not object to this request.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, relying on a precedent from a coordinate bench and a P&H High Court decision which held that the audit report under section 12A(1)(b) could be filed at the appellate stage and such delay was a 'venial breach'. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for re-computation of income after considering the belatedly filed Form 10B.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after the assessee provided sufficient reasons. However, due to the assessee's failure to substantiate their claims and produce required documents before the lower authorities, the issues are restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal held that although notices were served and status showed 'Delivered', the assessee did not respond. However, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee and the lack of objection from the Revenue. It was held that since the quantum appeal is pending, the penalty appeal should be adjudicated along with it.

The Tribunal condoned the delays and admitted the appeals for hearing. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence.

The tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant documents and failed to produce evidence required by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. To provide justice, the issues were restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal noted that no notice was served on the assessee and they were not heard, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Pr.CIT for readjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals after finding the reasons sufficient. The appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide relevant documents and evidence to substantiate its claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 586 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.

The Tribunal, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, held that delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, especially when the assessee is illiterate, resides in a remote area, and is unfamiliar with e-assessments. The assessee also faced illness.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, adopted a justice-oriented approach. It held that refusing to condone delay could defeat substantial justice, especially when the delay was not deliberate. The assessee's explanation for the delay was found to be not false.

The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee's inability to produce evidence before the lower authorities, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to substantiate the claim. The issues were restored to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives adequate opportunity of being heard.