ITAT Guwahati Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity for representation, constituting a violation of natural justice. Therefore, both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside. The case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after granting the assessee a proper 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 observed that all lower orders were ex-parte and recognized the assessee's claim of Scheduled Tribe status eligible for Section 10(26) exemption. It decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate claims, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the case to the AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

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, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matter. The CIT (Exemption) is directed to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard and submit documents before deciding the registration applications afresh.

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 set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing that the assessee be granted an opportunity of being heard to justify the genuineness of its activities and claim for approval.

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 observed that the Ld. CIT (Exemption) had denied the claims due to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT (Exemption). The Ld. CIT (Exemption) is directed to decide the applications afresh after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard and considering their submissions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AYs 2010-11 and 2012-13 to 2015-16 (unabated assessments), it held that additions without incriminating material found during search were invalid, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. For AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 (abated assessments), while the AO had jurisdiction, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication on merits.

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 observed that the assessee did not make proper representation before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer for all assessment years were set aside. The cases are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to furnish necessary evidence and frame assessment orders de novo, with consequential penalty orders also set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that proper representation was not made by the assessee, but also noted that the AO had not adequately investigated the bogus creditors or purchases. Consequently, both the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO for all assessment years were set aside, remitting the cases back to the AO to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish necessary evidence and confirm sundry creditors, with consequential penalty orders also set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to submit necessary evidence before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) for all assessment years (2013-14 to 2018-19) and remanded the cases back to the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to file necessary evidence, with the liberty to make a best judgment assessment if no evidence is furnished. The consequential penalty orders were also set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that proper representation was not made by the assessee before either the AO or the CIT(A). To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO for all assessment years and remanded the cases back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish necessary evidence, and if compliance is still lacking, a best judgment assessment may be made.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's lack of proper representation but decided to grant a fresh opportunity. Consequently, all orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and AO for the concerned assessment years, including related penalty orders, were set aside, directing the AO to conduct a de novo assessment after allowing the assessee to furnish necessary evidence and explanations.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity for proper representation. Consequently, it set aside the orders of both the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO for all assessment years. The case has been remanded back to the Ld. AO with a direction to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard and to file necessary evidence before framing fresh assessment orders.

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 set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to examine whether the assessee is a person of a notified tribe and if their income has a direct nexus with a specified geographical territory, considering all relevant documents.

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 held that in the interest of substantive justice, the CIT(A) should have admitted the new evidence. Consequently, the quantum appeal was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee ample opportunity to present all documents. The penalty imposed under Section 271AAC(1) was also set aside, with the AO retaining the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if the income is ultimately enhanced.

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 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 that withdrawal of appeal is a primary condition for availing benefits under the DTVSVS Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee the liberty to file a miscellaneous application if they fail to get their matters settled 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 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 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.