ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Satish Kumar and coordinate benches of Ranchi Tribunal and this Tribunal, held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law because the time provided for compliance was less than the seven days prescribed by the statute. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Satish Kumar and coordinate benches of Ranchi Tribunal and this Tribunal, held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was bad in law because the time provided for compliance was less than the seven days prescribed by the statute. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel & Power Ltd., had held that notices issued for AY 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 are invalid and liable to be quashed as reassessment proceedings could not be completed within the statutory time prescribed under TOLA.

The tribunal held that substantial justice should be prioritized over technicalities like limitation. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared income at 10% or less in subsequent years. Therefore, it was held that the income for the impugned assessment year should be assessed at the maximum of 10%, considering the subsequent disclosures.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing principles of substantial justice over technicality. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits, with the assessee granted an opportunity to be heard and to provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the loans were taken to meet urgent expenses during the initial operational year, and given the compelling circumstances and undisputed genuineness, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the adhoc disallowance of expenses made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not permissible as no specific errors were pointed out. Furthermore, since the assessee is a registered trust under section 12AB of the Act and also registered with the Government of Odisha, the provisions of section 167B(1) of the Act would not apply.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While restoring the issue to the AO for de novo assessment with an opportunity of being heard, a cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing principles of substantial justice over technicality. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits, with the assessee granted an opportunity to be heard and to provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing principles of substantial justice over technicality. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits, with the assessee granted an opportunity to be heard and to provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal accepted the delay condonation and restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents before both the AO and CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte assessment order. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that similar issues in the succeeding assessment year were restored to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-represented before the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with one last chance to present her case. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary details. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during the assessment and appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the amounts were advance received for expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of the two companies. Based on this, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary details. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during the assessment and appellate proceedings.

The tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 30.06.2022 was beyond the prescribed limitation period of six years from the end of the assessment year 2013-2014. Therefore, the notice was invalid and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims and produce necessary evidence before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities like limitation. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with one last chance to present her case. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims and produce necessary evidence before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act after the expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year, the approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CCIT). Since the approval was granted by the Pr.CIT, it was invalid. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148 and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. While the assessee requested another opportunity, the Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperation.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary details to support their claims.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims and produce necessary evidence before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the payments made in cash were due to business exigencies and extraordinary circumstances. The truck owners' association had demanded cash payments due to issues with cheque clearances and bounced cheques. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary details to substantiate the payments.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee had uploaded documents before the CIT(A) who adjudicated the matter. However, since relevant documents might not have been produced before the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims and produce necessary evidence before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that various opportunities were provided to the assessee by the CIT(A) to substantiate the grounds of appeal, and in the absence of such substantiation, the appeal was dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the SBN deposit cannot be treated as undisclosed income as it was part of the disclosed turnover and shown in the bank account. However, the assessee could not prove that the 8% presumptive income estimation was erroneous, thus confirming the addition on that basis.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary details to support their claims.

The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay and held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. They found no presumption of deliberate delay or mala fides.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicality, especially in cases of limitation. They condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary details to support their claims.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the facts. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books of account and estimated the entire receipts as income. The assessee submitted comparative profit percentages for preceding and succeeding years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary details. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during the assessment and appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the adhoc disallowance of expenses made by the AO was not permissible as no specific error was pointed out. Furthermore, since the assessee is a registered trust, Section 167B(1) of the Act is not applicable, and the normal rate of tax should be applied.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the amounts were advance received for expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of the two companies. Based on this, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary details to support their claims.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents and failed to produce evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits due to non-submission of documents. The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication but imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim and produce required evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and perused the order of the CIT(A). It was noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-maintainability as no grounds of appeal were raised. However, Form No. 35, containing eight grounds of appeal, was produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with documents before the lower authorities and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents and evidence before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 516 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to the clarification sought by the CPC and to the show cause notice before the intimation, and later failed to adequately clarify the proposed adjustment in their rectification petition. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to explain the discrepancy.