ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- cost. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 2753 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, again subject to cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- cost. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 2753 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, again subject to cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- cost. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 2753 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, again subject to cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- cost. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 2753 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, again subject to cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- cost. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 2753 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, again subject to cost.

The tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A), it was in the interest of justice to set aside the penalty order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption and taxing the entire gross receipts by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act was beyond its powers. If the Revenue wished to deny the exemption, it should have proceeded under section 143(3) of the Act to assess the real income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. The appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to substantiate claims and produce evidence. The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 328 days, accepting the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation during the appellate proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to substantiate claims with documents before the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for a fresh adjudication in the interest of justice, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Since the quantum issues on which the penalties were levied were restored for readjudication, the basis for the penalty no longer survived. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had overlooked the detailed submissions provided by the assessee regarding the nature of credits, which included inter-bank transfers, TDR closures, and grants. A key point was an erroneous submission by the assessee, where the word 'not' was omitted, leading the AO and CIT(A) to believe the assessee requested credits be treated as income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- cost. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 2753 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, again subject to cost.

The Tribunal noted that the bank accounts showed both deposits and withdrawals, indicating business activity. Even though the assessee declared 10% income in subsequent years, and section 44AD provides for 8% income, the AO was directed to assess income at 10% of total cash deposits in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim and failed to produce required evidence, leading to the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the circumstances, including the involvement of the assessee's directors in DRT litigation. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte. It was observed that Form 26AS showed the same transactions multiple times. Consequently, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after due verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee provided medical certificates as support. The addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of demonetized currency was deleted as it was a small amount relative to the turnover and considering government circulars.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the non-cooperation of the assessee, the case was restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for adjudication afresh with an opportunity of being heard, along with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to a lack of relevant documents and failed to produce evidence as required. While the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings. The cost is payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost will result in the order of the CIT(A) being confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption and taxing the entire gross receipts by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act was beyond its powers. If the Revenue wished to deny the exemption, it should have proceeded under section 143(3) of the Act to assess the real income.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was indeed invalid. The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 07.03.2022, requiring a response by 14.03.2022, did not provide the assessee with the mandatory seven clear days for responding. This was in violation of the provisions of Section 148A(b) and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), which was also followed by a coordinate bench in the case of Imran Ahmad (supra). The Tribunal reasoned that the calculation of seven clear days requires excluding both the date of issuance of the notice and the date on which the response is sought. As the notice provided only five clear days, it was considered violative of the statutory mandate. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and, consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148A(b) was invalid as it did not provide the assessee with the minimum seven clear days for response, as required by the statute and supported by judicial precedents. Consequently, the original assessment order and the subsequent revisionary proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the jurisdictional 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 held that in the present appeals, the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were considered contrary to the Department's policy decision and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in the present appeals, the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were considered contrary to the Department's policy decision and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appearance of the assessee's counsel without the prescribed uniform constituted a breach of etiquette and violation of rules. Due to this, the Tribunal refused to proceed with the hearing of the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 15,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal held that in the present appeals, the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were considered contrary to the Department's policy decision and dismissed.

The tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148, beyond the three-year period, should have been granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (PCIT). Relying on judicial pronouncements, the tribunal found the approval invalid.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee's failure to substantiate its claim. The assessee was directed to cooperate and produce all required evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 267 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. However, a cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

The Tribunal held that in the present appeals, the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were considered contrary to the Department's policy decision and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim and produce required evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act provided only five clear days for the assessee to respond, which is less than the statutory minimum of seven clear days required. Relying on the decisions of the Jharkhand High Court in Satish Kumar and other coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that this short notice period rendered the notice invalid.

The Tribunal held that in the present appeals, the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were considered contrary to the Department's policy decision and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the rejection was solely based on the non-submission of financial statements. Considering the assessee's undertaking to furnish the required documents, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for another opportunity and the need for justice, decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to provide cogent documentary evidence for the investments.

The Tribunal held that the amalgamation of CPAL with KAFL was approved by the High Court, and the AO was not justified in questioning its validity based on third-party statements. The Tribunal found no adverse material to implicate the assessee or their broker in any suspicious transactions and concluded that the transactions were bonafide and genuine.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the defects pointed out in the notice were not cured by the assessee. The assessee's counsel claimed non-receipt of notice, but no proof was provided.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 10(38) as the transactions were genuine and supported by evidence. Following a coordinate bench decision, the AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Revenue did not object. Regarding the rejection of the application, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have granted an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Revenue did not object. Regarding the rejection of the application, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have granted an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of Rs. 50,008/- was received on the sale of agricultural property. Therefore, Section 269SS of the Act was not applicable to the facts of the case.

The Tribunal observed that the additional ground was not adjudicated with a speaking order and the TDS issue was not specifically adjudicated. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both issues to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence. However, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee for its non-cooperative attitude.