ITAT Guwahati Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to profit on sale of motor vehicle and unexplained import expenditures by the CIT(A). It further directed the AO to delete the entire disallowance for writer's remuneration and all ad-hoc disallowances, finding them based on surmises without proper rejection of books. Crucially, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18, ruling that the Section 143(2) notice was invalid for non-compliance with mandatory CBDT instructions, thereby rendering the subsequent assessment void ab initio.

Acknowledging that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to appear, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the ex-parte assessment under Section 144 warranted another opportunity for the assessee to prove their claims before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144, and the assessee deserved another opportunity to present his claims. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal found that almost all the written-back liabilities/expenses were incurred on capital account for building, plant, machinery, or capitalized rent, and were never charged to the Profit & Loss account. Since Section 41(1) applies only to liabilities/expenses previously allowed as a deduction in computing income, the tribunal held it was not applicable to these capital liabilities. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all relevant documents to both the AO and CIT(A), which showed the capital balance comprised ancestral property, inherited land and building, loans, and business assets, representing a brought-forward balance. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in treating these as additional evidences when they were available to the AO. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order on merits based on available records.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it unintentional and bona fide. It held that the CIT(E)'s order was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking justification for deeming the application non-maintainable despite an existing provisional registration. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a fresh consideration of the assessee's 80G application on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, stating that it was in the interest of substantive justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delays for both assessment years in the interest of substantive justice and set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned orders. The cases were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard under Section 143(1)(a), first proviso.

The ITAT accepted the Assessee's argument, finding that there was a genuine belief of being covered by Section 10(26). The Tribunal held that the case qualified for relief under Section 273B, which provides for no penalty if there was a reasonable cause, and thus directed the deletion of the impugned penalty.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing its duty to deliver justice, set aside the order and condoned the 325-day delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits.

The Tribunal observed that income derived by a Scheduled Tribe member within Arunachal Pradesh may be exempt under Section 10(26), irrespective of the source if from a specified area. Recognizing the assessee's claim and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate claims before the AO. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard regarding the notice issued or the settlement of disputed tax. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the expectation that the assessee would actively participate in the opportunities for hearing provided by the CIT(A).

The tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, despite the assessee having had prior opportunities. It directed the assessee to diligently present their facts and arguments, cautioning that non-compliance would empower the CIT(A) to confirm the AO's findings.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2019-20, the unamended section 143(1)(a) did not include Chapter VI deductions, such as section 80IE, under its purview for processing of returns. Therefore, the denial of deduction was incorrect, and the AO-CPC was directed to allow the deduction claim with consequential adjustments.

Despite the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to cooperate and present arguments regarding jurisdiction and facts for a judicious view.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to present facts or avail opportunities before the AO and CIT(A). However, deeming it fit for proper adjudication, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's submissions and pass a speaking order, with the assessee urged to cooperate.

The Tribunal observed that certain procedural grounds of appeal, specifically concerning the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) and absence of a draft order under section 144C, had not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, covering both the procedural challenges and the merits of the assessee's claim regarding the source of the impugned cash, ensuring due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's initial explanation for delay was insufficient under Section 249(3). However, it decided to grant the assessee a second chance, setting aside the FAA's order. The matter was remanded back to the FAA with directions for the assessee to file a fresh condonation petition with an affidavit, which the FAA would consider, and if condoned, proceed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine. Recognizing the lack of sufficient opportunity of being heard granted by the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to present his case. The assessee did not press certain grounds related to the addition u/s 43B and donation disallowance.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) should have considered the case on its merits despite the delay and that the AO's entire addition of the sale consideration without considering the acquisition cost was not justifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s order and the assessment order, remanding the case to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to give the assessee an opportunity to be heard and substantiate claims.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) should have considered the case's merits despite the delay and that the entire addition of the sale consideration might not be justifiable without accounting for acquisition costs or inheritance. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, providing the assessee an opportunity to present their claims.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had properly considered both the assessee's inability to provide full evidence for the 'free care' expenditure and the charitable nature of a hospital in a remote area, leading to a justified partial allowance in the interest of justice.

While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity in the interest of substantive justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and to pass speaking orders, with the expectation that the assessee would cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, classifying it as a procedural and directory requirement rather than mandatory, citing various judicial precedents. It directed that the assessee be allowed the benefit of exemption as claimed in its return of income. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification order was invalid as it was passed without issuing a notice and providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in violation of Section 154(3) of the Income Tax Act. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that any rectification order enhancing liability or reducing a refund without due process is invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to adjudicate other issues as the AO's order itself was invalid.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the assessee presented new documents not previously before the lower authorities. Considering the interests of substantive justice and the need for fresh verification of these new evidences, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.

The ITAT found that the First Appellate Authority failed to pass a speaking order and did not consider the assessee's contentions regarding the retrospective omission of the new registration requirement by TOLA-2020. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merit and legal issues, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged CIT(A)'s power to enhance income but noted the lack of a clear finding on the territorial origin of the pharmacy business receipts. It held that if income is exempt under Section 10(26), maintaining books of account might not be required, but the assessee's GST filings indicate records exist. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the Rs. 12,56,899/- addition and remanded the issue back to the AO to examine whether the pharmacy business receipts arose from the specified geographical territory, which would qualify for Section 10(26) exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the 211-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. Based on the remand report where the AO had virtually agreed with the assessee's contentions regarding the nature of expenses, the Tribunal deleted all additions made under the heads of repair & maintenance, software development, loss of sale of fixed assets, telephone expenses, local conveyance, tour & travels, office expenses, and vehicle running expenses. Additionally, it held that the late fee on GST payment was compensatory, not penal, citing Supreme Court precedents, and therefore deleted its disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's unfortunate demise and non-attendance before lower authorities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy where the AO allowed deductions from salary but then added the entire gross salary, an aspect not considered by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing an adequate opportunity of being heard for the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to file an application under Rule 46A for submitting additional documents. Considering the assessment was completed ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the assessee's submissions and that the facts were not properly established by the AO, indicating a potential miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G. The CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing fresh orders, setting aside the previous rejection orders.

The Tribunal, with the consent of the DR, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the appeals on their merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition as a valid reason for non-compliance. Both the quantum and penalty matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to first address the legal issues pertaining to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (u/s 148/148A(d)) and then, if necessary, proceed to the merits of the case.