ITAT Guwahati Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that in a subsequent assessment (AY 2019-20) for the same assessee, the claim under Section 10(26) was accepted. Considering this, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to re-ascertain the facts regarding the assessee's income, its situs in Tripura, and thereafter compute the taxable income for AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that Section 143(1) is a self-contained code allowing only limited adjustments and does not permit the mechanical application of Section 50C for enhancing capital gains. It noted that Section 50C provides a mechanism, like referring to a Valuation Officer, which would be denied if adjustments are made solely under Section 143(1). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that adjustments under Section 50C are not possible within the scope of Section 143(1) and directed the deletion of the enhanced capital gain.

The Tribunal held that the application of Section 115BBE is mandatory when additions are made under Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D. It clarified that the provisions of Section 115BBE were applicable from AY 2013-14, and the later amendment to higher rates from AY 2017-18 did not affect the applicability of the section for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's coverage under Section 10(26) and the geographical origin of the income were critical issues requiring proper examination. It remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine all documents, determine if the income was earned from specified territories, and pass a fresh reasoned order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not have the benefit of Mr. Gautam Roy's substantive assessment order. The matter is remanded back to the AO to verify if the impugned amount has been duly considered in Mr. Gautam Roy's hands. If verified, the AO is directed to delete the amount added in the assessee's protective assessment. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal examined the assessee's furnished details and books of accounts, noting that the credited amounts (accounting income, bank interest, client receipts, salary, etc.) were either incorporated as income in the profit and loss account or duly shown as reimbursements and transfers. Disagreeing with the CIT(A)'s finding of lack of evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal remitted the legal issue regarding the validity of assessment proceedings (due to alleged violation of Section 153D concerning consolidated approval) back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing consideration of facts from the AO and approving authority. Additionally, the issues on merits challenged by the Revenue and the Cross Objections were also remitted to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after affording the assessee due opportunity of hearing under Section 250(6) of the Act.

The tribunal remitted the legal issue concerning the validity of the assessment proceedings under Section 153D of the Act (due to consolidated approval) back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. It also restored the issues on merits of the additions to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal restored the core legal issue concerning the validity of assessment orders, specifically regarding the consolidated approval under Section 153D of the Act, back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider facts, judicial precedents, and comments from the AO. Similarly, the issues on merits challenged by the Revenue, where the CIT(A) had granted relief, were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal restored both the legal issue concerning the validity of assessment (due to alleged violation of section 153D for approval) and the merits of the additions to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to obtain comments from the AO regarding the approval process and reconsider the case on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the primary legal issue concerning the validity of assessment orders, challenged under Section 153D for consolidated approval across multiple assessment years, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Additionally, the merits of the additions and the relief granted by the CIT(A) were also remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, providing both parties due opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal remitted both the legal issue regarding the validity of assessment orders (due to alleged violation of Section 153D's approval process) and the merits of the additions back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is instructed to obtain comments from the AO, consider the facts and judicial precedents, and re-decide the issues after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All grounds of appeal and cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted the legal issue regarding the validity of assessments due to consolidated approval under Section 153D as an additional ground. It restored both the legal issue and the merits of the additions to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to call for comments from the AO and approving authority on the Section 153D approval and to decide the merits in accordance with Section 250(6) after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal admitted the assessee's legal challenge regarding the validity of assessment orders, contending they violated Section 153D due to mechanical approval. Observing that the CIT(A) had not fully considered this legal issue or the merits, the Tribunal remanded both the legal issue and the merits of the case back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing a comprehensive review of all facts and compliance steps.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of assessment orders due to non-compliance with Section 153D, as a consolidated approval was given instead of individual ones. Considering this legal issue and the merits, the Tribunal restored the entire matter (both legal issue and merits of additions/deletions) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining necessary reports and considering judicial precedents.

The Tribunal remanded the core legal issue concerning the validity of assessment proceedings due to alleged violation of Section 153D of the Act back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, directing the CIT(A) to obtain comments from both the AO and the approving authority. Additionally, the issues on merits, which the CIT(A) had partially relieved, were also remitted to the CIT(A) for re-consideration, as the AO had no opportunity to review details previously due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal admitted the legal issue of approval under Section 153D of the Act, noting that a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years appeared mechanical. Both the legal issue (validity of approval under Section 153D) and the merits of the additions were remanded back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to obtain comments from the AO regarding the approval process and re-evaluate the issues after affording the assessee due opportunity.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's legal ground challenging the assessment orders as invalid due to alleged violation of Section 153D (consolidated approval instead of year-wise). It restored both the legal issue and the merits of the additions back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider all facts and judicial precedents after obtaining the AO's comments. All appeals and cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) admitted the assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of assessment orders, specifically questioning the consolidated approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessment years. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the ITAT restored both the legal issue concerning Section 153D approval and the merits of the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain comments from the AO, consider judicial precedents, and afford the assessee due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders for AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 might be invalid due to a consolidated approval under Section 153D, which the assessee argued was not in accordance with law. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal restored this legal issue to the CIT(A) for re-examination and decision, allowing it for "statistical purposes". Additionally, the Tribunal remanded the merits of the additions made by the AO (challenged by both Revenue and assessee) back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, as the CIT(A) had granted relief without adequate examination by the AO.