ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2026

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was instructed to comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, as the original order was ex parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices.

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to respond to the remand report. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal decided that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be deleted as the final assessment was based on estimated income. However, the penalty under Section 271B was confirmed, following the previous decision where the assessee's failure to get accounts audited was not excused.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider Rule 46A for any additional evidence and grant an opportunity to the assessee and AO.

The Tribunal restored both the quantum addition and the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider Rule 46A for any additional evidence and grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issues back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), who must strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal restored both the quantum addition and the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issues back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), who must strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal decided that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be deleted as the final assessment was based on estimated income. However, the penalty under Section 271B was confirmed, following the previous decision where the assessee's failure to get accounts audited was not excused.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was quashed, the penalty levied on its basis had no legal standing. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for re-adjudication. The assessee is directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) must comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication. The assessee is directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence.

The tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence and grant the AO an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard and directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the JCIT's ex parte order and remanded the issue back for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply, and the JCIT was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delays before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delays before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. The JCIT's order was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits, with directions to follow Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. The JCIT's order was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits, with directions to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding additional evidence.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding additional evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard and present relevant details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits, with directions to comply with Rule 46A regarding additional evidence.