ITAT Cuttack Judgments — December 2025

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 394 days after considering the assessee's submission that inevitable circumstances prevented them from providing details. However, since the assessee also failed to comply with notices from the CIT(A), the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This restoration is subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of four days in filing each of the five appeals, as the Revenue did not object to the assessee's condonation application supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of all the appeals. The judgment extensively details the assessee's incorporation, its registration under the Central Board of Excise and Customs for various services including consulting engineer and works contract, and its registration under the EPF Act. It also presents Form 26AS showing TDS deductions. However, the provided text of the judgment does not contain the Tribunal's findings on the substantive issues related to the assessment years or the taxability of services. The operative directions and the final decision on the merits of the appeals are not recorded in the excerpt.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made the disallowance because expenses were not fully utilized for business purposes. The Revenue produced no evidence to support this claim, and adhoc disallowances are not permitted under the Income Tax Act. The AO also failed to show defects in the bills and vouchers.

The Tribunal found that there was an inordinate delay of 3789 days in filing the appeals, and the reasons provided by the assessee were not plausible. The Tribunal held that such excessive delays, especially those resulting from negligence or inaction, cannot be excused as they undermine the purpose of the law of limitation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had selected the wrong section code for filing Form 10A while seeking registration under Section 12AB. Since the mistake was not intentional and in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches, the Jurisdictional High Court, and the Supreme Court, which allowed similar claims for exemption under Section 10(38) in cases involving shares of Kailash Auto. The revenue did not challenge the factual findings in prior proceedings, leading to the acceptance of the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee was a shell company or that it engaged in financial irregularities. The assessee's receipts were from legitimate contracts, channelled through banking, and from government organizations. The company also paid various taxes and statutory dues, and had contracts with government agencies, indicating its existence.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing appeals was beyond the assessee's control, largely due to the transition to a faceless regime and staff shortages. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee had been provided multiple opportunities, they had not responded on most occasions. However, it was also noted that the lower appellate authority had not followed the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act by not disposing of the appeal after considering all points. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the funds withdrawn from the assessee's NRO account and redeposited during demonetization were out of accounted money, especially since there was no source of unaccounted income. For the second addition, the Tribunal found that the transaction in AY 2017-2018 was through bank accounts and NRE accounts, and a prior transaction in 2014 was irrelevant.

The Tribunal noted the submission of the assessee's authorized representative regarding the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of disallowing purchases under Section 37(1) of the Act was a concluded view. The Principal CIT invoking Section 263 to direct the AO to apply Section 69C constituted a change of opinion, which is not permissible. The issue of whether Section 69C applies was pending before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after considering fresh evidence filed by the assessee.

The tribunal held that the intimation issued by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act was unsustainable as it was unsigned. The revenue was unable to provide any contrary evidence to challenge the assessee's claim that the intimation was unsigned.

The Tribunal found that there was an inordinate delay of 3789 days in filing the appeals, and the reasons provided by the assessee were not plausible. The Tribunal held that such excessive delays, especially those resulting from negligence or inaction, cannot be excused as they undermine the purpose of the law of limitation.

The tribunal held that the first addition of Rs. 43,517/- is upheld as the assessee failed to produce supporting vouchers. However, the addition of Rs. 35,633/- regarding income from Hindustan Unilever Limited was deleted as the assessee had offered it under indirect income. The adhoc disallowance of Rs. 2,04,393/- was also deleted as such disallowances on an adhoc basis are not permissible.

The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 had set aside the assessment order to the AO for fresh adjudication. Since the original assessment order was already set aside, the appeal before the Tribunal was rendered infructuous.