ITAT Guwahati Judgments — June 2025

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 set aside the orders of the lower authorities for all three appeals (one quantum and two penalty matters) and remanded them back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present all necessary documents and evidence, with quantum matters to be adjudicated first, followed by penalty if any additions survive.

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, finding it in the interest of substantive justice, set aside the impugned orders and remanded both cases to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was given another opportunity to present facts, with a directive to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded all three matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to furnish necessary documents for proving the transactions and consider the quantum matter first before deciding on penalties, if any addition survives.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's declaration was based on a preliminary statement without proper accounting and that relied-upon precedents were distinguishable. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, remanding the matter to the AO to re-examine the impounded books and statements, determine the actual undisclosed income, and assess its nature (business income vs. unexplained investment). Some grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the 353-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical conditions. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the best judgment assessment by the AO was made without proper opportunity to the assessee and included arbitrary additions of both cash deposits and withdrawals. Citing Supreme Court precedents on fair best judgment assessments, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, remanding the matter for a de novo assessment with a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was not properly estimated and noted potential double taxation (deposits treated as both turnover and unexplained money). Citing judicial precedents and CBDT instructions for handling demonetization cases, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remanding the matter for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to examine all evidence and ensure additions are not made twice.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee failed to discharge the heavy onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money transactions. The investors were found to be shell companies with common directors, negligible income, and no justification for the high share premium. The Tribunal further upheld the treatment of membership fees as income, stating that the assessee's grounds for appeal were rejected.

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.

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.