ITAT Guwahati Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not make a proper representation and was not granted sufficient time to respond. Therefore, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside to allow the assessee a final opportunity to be heard and make proper submissions before the AO.

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's claim of Scheduled Tribe status and tax exemption under Section 10(26). Concluding that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with directions to allow the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to substantiate their claims. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's claim of Scheduled Tribe status and tax exemption under Section 10(26). Concluding that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with directions to allow the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) had denied registration due to non-compliance. Considering the assessee's claim of insufficient opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT (Exemption) is instructed to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to consider all submissions and documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) had denied registration due to non-compliance. Considering the assessee's claim of insufficient opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT (Exemption) is instructed to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to consider all submissions and documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below ₹60,00,000/-, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if the tax effect is later found to be above the limit or falls under exceptions.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given proper opportunity by the Ld. CIT (Exemption). Therefore, in the interest of justice, both the orders of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) were set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) is directed to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to submit replies to queries.

The Tribunal deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit its documents and justify its activities for approval. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given proper opportunity by the Ld. CIT (Exemption). Therefore, in the interest of justice, both the orders of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) were set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) is directed to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to submit replies to queries.

The Tribunal deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit its documents and justify its activities for approval. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD and found no justification for the CIT(A) to apply a 15% net profit rate instead of the 8% claimed by the assessee. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to recompute the income by applying an 8% net profit rate under Section 44AD on the actual total turnover of Rs. 88,72,100/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, allowing them to be heard on merits. For some assessment years, the appeals were allowed outright, while for others, they were allowed for statistical purposes to enable fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that proper evidence was not presented by the assessee before the lower authorities and the reassessment proceedings lacked clarity on the specific creditors and purchases treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT held that the AO was not justified in bringing 'notional income' to tax, as there was no evidence of actual income earned and undisclosed. Emphasizing the principle of taxing only real income, the tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a resident of Nagaland and belonging to a Tribal community, may be eligible for income exemption under Section 10(26) if proper evidence is furnished. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate all claims.

The ITAT observed that the issues were fact-intensive and required further analysis at the AO's level. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the three disputed issues, instructing the AO to provide the assessee a fair hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the core issue was the applicability of Section 10(26) to the assessee's income. It set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals to the AO for fresh assessment, instructing the AO to examine all presented documents to determine if the assessee belongs to a notified tribe and if the income has a direct nexus with the specified geographical territory.

The Tribunal observed that the core issue was the applicability of Section 10(26) to the assessee's income. It set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals to the AO for fresh assessment, instructing the AO to examine all presented documents to determine if the assessee belongs to a notified tribe and if the income has a direct nexus with the specified geographical territory.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-response was due to a non-functional email. To ensure substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide proper opportunity to the assessee using the updated email ID.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance before lower authorities but acknowledged the extensive jurisdictional and factual challenges raised. To ensure a fair hearing on all issues, including jurisdictional prerequisites and merits of addition, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence, considering it essential for substantive justice. It remanded the quantum assessment (ITA No. 186/GTY/2024) back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide ample opportunity to the assessee. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 187/GTY/2024) was also allowed, with liberty for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if income is enhanced.

The tribunal found that factual issues were not adequately addressed due to the assessee's non-attendance. Therefore, the quantum matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) was deleted, with the caveat that fresh penalty proceedings could be initiated if an addition is made during the re-assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, acknowledging that withdrawal of appeals is a prerequisite for availing benefits under the DTVSVS Scheme. However, it provided the assessee with the option to file a miscellaneous application if they are unable to settle their matter under the DTVSVS Scheme.

The tribunal found that factual issues were not adequately addressed due to the assessee's non-attendance. Therefore, the quantum matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) was deleted, with the caveat that fresh penalty proceedings could be initiated if an addition is made during the re-assessment.

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserved another chance to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, acknowledging that withdrawal of appeals is a prerequisite for availing benefits under the DTVSVS Scheme. However, it provided the assessee with the option to file a miscellaneous application if they are unable to settle their matter under the DTVSVS Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence, considering it essential for substantive justice. It remanded the quantum assessment (ITA No. 186/GTY/2024) back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide ample opportunity to the assessee. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 187/GTY/2024) was also allowed, with liberty for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if income is enhanced.