ITAT Guwahati Judgments — July 2025

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte, without analyzing facts or recording reasons, thus violating Section 250(6) of the Act and natural justice principles. Deeming the impugned order unsustainable, the ITAT set it aside and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, with a clarification against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the CIT(A)'s order violated principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and failed to record reasons or analyze facts. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order as unsustainable and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it did not include a proper analysis of facts, decision, and reasons. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A)'s order was made without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, as it did not state the point in dispute or record reasons for its conclusion. The order was an ex-parte decision lacking factual analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s and AO's orders were ex-parte, passed without sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and thus violated natural justice. It noted the CIT(A)'s order also violated Section 250(6) by failing to state points of determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC upheld the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order without considering the assessee's uploaded replies, and that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by failing to state points of determination, decision, and reasons. Concluding the impugned orders were unsustainable, the Tribunal set them aside. The issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and for the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `Guwahati` Bench accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee no longer wished to pursue them in light of opting for the DTVSVS, 2024.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not stating the points in dispute or recording reasons. The CIT(A) failed to analyze the facts and assessment records, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points of determination, decision, and reasons. Concluding that the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity and natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) upheld the NeAC order by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering merits or the assessee's replies, and failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not providing reasons for its decision. Declaring the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order unsustainable, the Tribunal set it aside. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring reasonable opportunity for the assessee, with a caveat against unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal observed that the NFAC upheld the CIT(A)'s order without addressing the merits, dismissing the appeal in limine, and the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without analyzing the facts or providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be in violation of Section 250(6) for not stating the points of determination, decisions, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring reasonable opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that all previous orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. Agreeing with both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded both cases to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that the AO, despite being given ample time (over three years) and having submitted a remand report, failed to conduct further investigations or submit clarifications regarding the unsecured loans. The Tribunal concurred, holding that the AO's failure to perform their duty meant no adverse findings could be presumed against the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO and CIT(A) were compelled to issue ex-parte orders due to the assessee's absence. Accepting the request for remand, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and directed the AO to conduct fresh assessments. This involves providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard to substantiate their claims.

The ITAT observed that the AO accepted other sources of cash but rejected the explanation for paddy trading. Since the assessee had declared a net profit of 8.52% on the turnover of ₹38,65,000/- under section 44AD without adverse findings, and the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry into the assessee's claims of purchases (some by cheque), the addition under section 69A was deemed unwarranted. The ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹38,65,000/-.

The Tribunal noted the facts were identical to the case of *Pawan Agarwal vs. ACIT*. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to frame a fresh assessment after re-examining the impounded books of account, recorded statements, and recomputing the undisclosed income. If the assessee cannot explain the source of the additional income, the addition made by the AO shall be confirmed.