ITAT Dehradun Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) ought to have provided at least one more opportunity to the assessee to file the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before dismissing it. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the ITAT deemed it fit to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The direction was for the assessee to file a proper condonation application before the CIT(A), who would then decide it in accordance with the law and subsequently decide the appeal. The first appellate authority was also directed to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, the order could not be sustained as there was no finding on the assessee's core contention regarding its role as an intermediary and the inapplicability of TDS under Section 194Q. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-appearance despite opportunities but emphasized the need for substantial justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be diligent in attending future hearings. All grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of approximately 663 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee regarding his wife's health and issues with his counsel to be sufficient. The Tribunal acknowledged the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee in the appellate proceedings but, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. The addition of Rs. 1,59,54,170/- made by the AO under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act was set aside. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the cash deposits were from cash sales in his liquor business and the need to provide him an opportunity to explain these facts before the AO. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of significant delay attributable to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and where a prima facie case for re-examination of facts exists, the appellate authorities should lean towards providing an opportunity for a fresh assessment, even if there was prior non-compliance, to ensure justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty under Section 271AAC(1) was levied by the AO in respect of a cash deposit of Rs. 10,70,000 during the demonetization period. The assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, and had paid the requisite tax demand. However, Form 4, which would entitle the assessee to a waiver of penalty, had not yet been issued by the Principal CIT, Agra-1, despite the assessee's request. The AO had levied the penalty precisely because Form 4 had not been issued. The Tribunal found the assessee's request to be reasonable, considering the circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and directed the learned CIT(A) to keep the appeal pending until the matter regarding the issuance of Form 4 under the DTVSV Scheme is finally decided by the learned PCIT, Agra-1. All grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the penalty itself but remanded the matter for procedural completion.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was rejected by the lower authorities primarily because the assessee could not conclusively prove that the cash deposits were indeed student fees received during the year. The Tribunal acknowledged that the annual gross receipts were below Rs. 1 crore. In the interest of justice, and considering the assessee's request to produce evidence, the Tribunal decided to afford the assessee an opportunity to prove the nature of the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider the fresh evidence to be produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee in respect of sundry creditors, namely the ledger accounts for the immediate subsequent year, was admitted in the interest of justice due to a substantial cause for not filing it before the lower authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's submissions regarding the cost of construction for capital gains, supported by the balance sheet for FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08), and the fact that the addition of Rs. 25,84,000/- on account of cash deposit was also made in the assessment order of the assessee's husband, were not adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Furthermore, the factual verification required for the sundry creditors issue, for which additional evidence was admitted, necessitated a fresh examination. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment in respect of the issues confirmed or partly confirmed by the CIT(A) that were under appeal. The AO was directed to admit the additional evidence during the fresh assessment proceedings. All grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the revenues from contracts for services and facilities in relation to prospecting/extraction/production of oil and gas in India are not FTS/royalty and fall under Section 44BB, allowing Ground No. 1 of the assessee. Regarding the determination of income, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already given a finding of fact that the assessee has not carried out any activity in India in relation to the supply of cement units and batch mixers to ONGC, and that title and risk transferred out of India. The AO had not controverted these submissions, nor established any business connection or PE for these offshore supplies. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries vs. DIT, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that since all parts of the transaction were carried out outside Indian soil, it cannot be taxed in India, thus dismissing Grounds 7 to 10 of the Revenue. With respect to interest on income-tax refund, the Tribunal held that as it arose and was attributable to the PE in India, it becomes part of business profit under Article 7 of the India-US DTAA, taxable at MMR, dismissing Ground 3 of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revenues from contracts for services and facilities in relation to prospecting/extraction/production of oil and gas in India are not FTS/royalty and fall under Section 44BB, allowing Ground No. 1 of the assessee. Regarding the determination of income, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already given a finding of fact that the assessee has not carried out any activity in India in relation to the supply of cement units and batch mixers to ONGC, and that title and risk transferred out of India. The AO had not controverted these submissions, nor established any business connection or PE for these offshore supplies. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries vs. DIT, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that since all parts of the transaction were carried out outside Indian soil, it cannot be taxed in India, thus dismissing Grounds 7 to 10 of the Revenue. With respect to interest on income-tax refund, the Tribunal held that as it arose and was attributable to the PE in India, it becomes part of business profit under Article 7 of the India-US DTAA, taxable at MMR, dismissing Ground 3 of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the assessee's explanation of a communication gap with his tax consultant and his limited understanding of appellate procedures. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex parte. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the ITAT deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be vigilant about future notices and make full compliance to ensure adequate material for the Assessing Officer to take an appropriate view. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 13,24,500/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was made on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration. It was noted that the AO did not refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2) despite the assessee's request, and the CIT(A) did not consider the approved valuer's report submitted during the first appellate stage, citing the lack of reasons for not furnishing it earlier. Consequently, the Tribunal found it just and appropriate to restore the matter to the AO. The valuation report dated 11.11.2024 was admitted as additional evidence. The AO was directed to refer the matter to the DVO, pass a fresh order after considering both valuation reports, and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed a typographical error in filing the return for AY 2017-18. The AO passed the assessment order based on this erroneous income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee had not furnished contemporaneous documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged mistake in declaring 'Income from Other Sources'. The CIT(A) also held that without complete scrutiny or specific investigation, the sanctity of the claim for reduction could not be determined. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue of determination of correct income from other sources, including whether it was due to a typographical mistake, to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee to furnish evidence, and the assessee was directed to furnish the requisite documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019, was fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of the ITAT Pune, ITAT Ahmedabad, and ITAT Chandigarh on identical facts. The Tribunal noted that CIT(A)s had taken different stands on similar issues, emphasizing the importance of consistency in judicial decisions. The Tribunal also found support from the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in Vishnu Mohan T Nair v. Income Tax Officer, which suggested that the substance of the payment, rather than hyper-technical interpretations, should be considered, and that a pragmatic approach should be taken for employees in lower rungs. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file revised computations of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption, and for the Revenue authorities to compute the tax liability and grant refunds after due verification. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019, was fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of the ITAT Pune, ITAT Ahmedabad, and ITAT Chandigarh on identical facts. The Tribunal noted that CIT(A)s had taken different stands on similar issues, emphasizing the importance of consistency in judicial decisions. The Tribunal also found support from the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in Vishnu Mohan T Nair v. Income Tax Officer, which suggested that the substance of the payment, rather than hyper-technical interpretations, should be considered, and that a pragmatic approach should be taken for employees in lower rungs. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file revised computations of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption, and for the Revenue authorities to compute the tax liability and grant refunds after due verification. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.