ITAT Guwahati Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) adequately identified the specific documents or quantified the 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB, and the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned, speaking order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to properly ascertain and quantify the undisclosed income based on seized documents, consider the assessee's submissions, and pass a speaking order on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s orders were deficient as they failed to properly identify and quantify the 'undisclosed income' based on seized documents, and did not constitute a speaking order with adequate reasons. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years and remanded the cases back for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(A) to correctly ascertain the undisclosed income and issue a reasoned order.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-representation at both the assessment and first appellate stages. In the interest of justice and fair play, and considering the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(26), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and allowing the AO to represent the case as per Rule 46A if required.

The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT (Exemption) had erred by rejecting the registration application without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee did not have proper opportunity for compliance before the lower authorities (AO and CIT(A)), it set aside the orders of both the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. AO for a de novo reassessment, directing the assessee to cooperate and avail of the opportunities provided.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's genuine difficulty in claiming the deduction earlier, as eligibility arose post-rectification. Citing judicial precedents that allow the benefit if the audit report is made available before assessment completion, the Tribunal found 'exceptional elements' in the case. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Revenue to allow the deduction claim.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as a pure legal issue. It held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 151A became effective only from 29.03.2022, rendering actions taken by NFAC prior to this date invalid. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.