ITAT Guwahati Judgments — June 2025

The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present facts and evidence before the CIT(A). Consequently, all impugned orders (one quantum matter and two penalty matters) were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to first adjudicate the quantum matter, allowing the assessee to file necessary documents and, if required, obtain a remand report, before deciding on the penalties.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions to bank accounts not belonging to the assessee and that Section 145(3) was not invoked for AY 2021-22. However, the assessee's failure to provide any details or respond to notices was also noted.

The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present facts and evidence before the CIT(A). Consequently, all impugned orders (one quantum matter and two penalty matters) were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to first adjudicate the quantum matter, allowing the assessee to file necessary documents and, if required, obtain a remand report, before deciding on the penalties.

The tribunal observed that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present facts and evidence before the CIT(A). Consequently, all impugned orders (one quantum matter and two penalty matters) were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to first adjudicate the quantum matter, allowing the assessee to file necessary documents and, if required, obtain a remand report, before deciding on the penalties.

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, agreed that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present his case. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and both cases were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment proceedings. The Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate and the AO to provide ample opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions to bank accounts not belonging to the assessee and that Section 145(3) was not invoked for AY 2021-22. However, the assessee's failure to provide any details or respond to notices was also noted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a direct nexus between the liquidation of shares by the loan creditor and the advancement of the loan. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to verify the facts surrounding the impugned loan.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sundry debtors and creditors, finding the CIT(A)'s fact-finding and legal application to be correct. However, the Tribunal remanded issues regarding the AO's jurisdiction and the enhancement of business income back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to prove that the source of the cash deposits was also from the State of Nagaland. Consequently, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after granting the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, agreed that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present his case. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and both cases were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment proceedings. The Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate and the AO to provide ample opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient verification with GST authorities regarding the alleged purchases. Since the assessee denied the transactions and the onus shifted to the Revenue, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified without proper evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's initial disclosure and subsequent arguments lacked clarity regarding the stock valuation and its source. Therefore, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 353 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the severe medical conditions of the assessee and the supporting documentation provided. It also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs Mst. Katji & Others, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays to achieve substantial justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the delay was not deliberate or due to negligence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even in a best judgment assessment, the Assessing Officer should have estimated the income rather than adding entire deposits and withdrawals without proper justification. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order of Rs. 1,14,58,444/- made under Section 144 read with Section 147 was unreasonable, and the AO had not provided reasons for applying an 8% profit rate. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO and remanded the matter to the AO to make a fresh assessment (de novo) after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and considering their reply. The assessee was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and the AO was to pass an order in accordance with the law to the best of his judgment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, and not to tax the deposit both as turnover and unexplained credit.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of share application money. It found that the transactions were well-planned and stage-managed, indicating a 'round tripping' of funds. The investors' companies showed no significant business operations but invested at high premiums, suggesting a facade of genuineness.

The ITAT dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction for assessment, noting the assessee's participation in proceedings and failure to follow prescribed mechanisms for challenging jurisdiction. However, regarding the additions under sections 69 and 69C, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to present facts and for fresh adjudication, acknowledging that the assessee could not fully avail opportunities earlier.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim regarding improper notice service and their inability to present documents before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity of being heard.