ITAT Guwahati Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the application under the scheme is not accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO, remanding the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to conduct a fresh assessment (de novo) after providing the assessee ample opportunity to present evidence, reconcile item-wise discrepancies, and raise legal contentions. Specifically, the AO was instructed to re-examine the provisions of Section 68 and the facts related to the cash addition.

The Tribunal found the AO's order to be cryptic and lacking in clear facts, noting that legal precedents indicate penalties in search cases should typically be under Section 271AAB, not Section 271(1)(c). The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the AO for fresh proceedings to properly marshal the facts and consider the assessee's submissions before deciding on the penalty.

The ITAT, considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's relaxation of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic, decided that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal found an inconsistency in the AO's approach, noting that the rule of consistency applies in tax proceedings. It held that there was no justification for the AO to disregard the assessee's submission for AY 2017-18 when similar receipts were accepted in the previous year. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found significant gaps in the fact-finding by the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the AO to freshly adjudicate by examining whether the assessee is eligible for Section 10(26) exemption, verifying the sufficiency of sales receipts to explain bank deposits, and determining the taxability of the claimed agricultural income.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated crucial issues, specifically those concerning the AO's assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a Scheduled Tribe member and her income might be exempt under Section 10(26) if properly substantiated. However, the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings and provide necessary evidence to the lower authorities. Considering the Ld. DR's lack of objection, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing the assessee to substantiate her claims with adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded both issues to the Assessing Officer for re-verification. The AO is directed to verify the deposit dates for Staff & Labour Bonus to allow deduction under Section 43B if timely, and re-examine PF Liabilities based on Checkmate Services and actual deposit dates in the government account.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim as a Scheduled Tribe member, potentially eligible for exemption under Section 10(26), and noted the assessee's non-participation in prior proceedings. Considering the need for proper substantiation and the Learned DR's non-objection, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary evidence. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order for reconsideration.