ITAT Guwahati Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal found that the reassessment notice under section 148 was based on incorrect facts and issued without proper application of mind by the AO, as the assessee's explanation was ignored. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal ruled that reopening cannot be sustained on wrong facts or changed grounds without adequate enquiry. Therefore, the reopening of assessment and the consequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay, emphasizing that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, with the assessee directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid because it only specified 'computer aided scrutiny selection' and did not adhere to the CBDT instructions requiring the type of scrutiny to be mentioned. It emphasized that revenue authorities are bound by CBDT instructions, and any violation renders the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid. Citing previous co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the assessment framed under Section 143(3).

The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay, asserting that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with similar directions.

The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that technical lapses should not override substantial justice and the delay was beyond the assessee's control. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO to decide on merits, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence.

The tribunal dismissed all appeals. It found the assessees to be non-cooperative and that they failed to provide any explanation or evidence to support their claims regarding cash deposits or purchases, thereby upholding the findings of the lower authorities.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals related to cash deposits during demonetization due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to submit evidence. For the bogus purchase appeals, the tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding that the department had sufficient evidence of bogus purchases and the assessee failed to produce any contrary material.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning cash deposits as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence. Similarly, for the bogus purchases, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of accommodation entries and upheld the additions made by the lower authorities due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to controvert the findings. The Tribunal affirmed the orders of the CIT(A) across all appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities for both unexplained cash deposits during demonetization and bogus purchases. The decision was based on the assessees' complete non-cooperation in providing any explanation or evidence to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.

The tribunal dismissed all appeals. It confirmed the additions made by the lower authorities, citing the assessees' complete non-cooperation and consistent failure to substantiate their claims or respond to notices despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the records, found that Form 10-IE was indeed filed by the assessee on 10.02.2022 for AY 2021-22. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities erred in not taking note of this filing and allowing the benefit of Section 115BAC. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to grant the assessee the benefit of the new tax regime.

The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment was ex-parte due to non-service of notice on the dissolved firm and that the CIT(A)'s dismissal in limine violated Section 250(6) for not stating points of determination, decision, and reasons. The appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bonafide. In the interests of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The Tribunal also expected the assessee to be diligent in responding to notices issued by the Ld. AO prior to framing of assessment.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, with a clear instruction for the assessee to cooperate in the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings, failing which an adverse inference might be drawn.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had given insufficient weightage to the reasons for the delay. Recognizing the importance of substantive justice, the Tribunal condoned the 227-day delay, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that the AO's adjustments were legally untenable due to a violation of natural justice by not providing prior intimation under section 143(1)(a). It further held that the filing of Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory, based on various judicial precedents, thus allowing the 80IE deduction. For the 36(1)(va) issue, the Tribunal clarified that such adjustments should be considered for computing 80IE relief, as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016.

The Tribunal held that the AO's orders were legally untenable for violating natural justice principles by not providing an intimation about proposed adjustments. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the filing of Form 10CCB within a stipulated date is directory, not mandatory. For the 36(1)(va) issue, the Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, clarifying that such adjustments must be considered for computing relief u/s 80IE.

The Tribunal found the AO's orders untenable due to a breach of natural justice by not providing prior intimation for adjustments under section 143(1)(a). It held that the filing of Form 10CCB for section 80IE claims is directory, not mandatory, based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Additionally, adjustments under section 36(1)(va) must be factored in for computing section 80IE deductions, as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016.

The Tribunal held that it is the AO's responsibility to lead evidence regarding any incriminating information. It found the situation absurd where the assessee was asked to prove that an amount did not belong to them, despite the department failing to establish any connection. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned amount of Rs. 1,88,82,000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide. It set aside the ex-parte assessment and first appellate orders for both cases and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with an expectation that the assessee would be alert to future notices.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee. In the interest of substantive justice, the ex-parte orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, expecting the assessee to be vigilant regarding future notices.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons bona fide. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) for both assessment years and remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in the interest of substantive justice.

Despite the assessee's consistent non-cooperation at all stages, the ITAT, in the interests of substantive justice, set aside the impugned penalty order. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to attend before the Ld. CIT(A), warning that an adverse view could be taken if there is continued non-compliance.

The Tribunal observed that the principles of *res judicata* do not strictly apply to tax proceedings. Since the assessee did not substantially comply with the AO's notices and presented new evidence only to the CIT(A) without the AO's verification, and considering the lender faced Section 276CC proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to produce all necessary documents and the AO to conduct thorough enquiries.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition and circumstances. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte because the assessee failed to participate in either proceeding. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO. The AO was directed to reframe the assessment after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, and the assessee was instructed to substantiate claims.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and first appellate proceedings were conducted ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The AO is directed to reframe the assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and substantiate claims.

Observing that both the assessment and first appellate orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the AO. This allows the assessee an opportunity to be heard and substantiate their claims, ensuring justice is served, and the assessment can be reframed.

Observing that both the assessment and first appellate orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and re-framing of the assessment, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and for the assessee to substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order by the AO and the appellate order by the CIT(A) were passed ex-parte, as the assessee did not participate in either proceeding. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for reconsideration, directing the AO to reframe the assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also directed to substantiate his claims before the AO.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and the first appellate proceedings were conducted ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The AO is directed to reframe the assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and the assessee is to substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and first appellate orders were ex-parte. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, directing the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and the assessee to substantiate their claims. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits as redeposits from prior withdrawals, and in the absence of evidence for other utilization, the additions were deleted. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal ruled that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid because the original assessment was already sub-judice before the CIT(A), rendering all subsequent proceedings and additions null and void. The Tribunal also reiterated that the assessee's transportation income and interest income are exempt under Section 10(26) of the Act.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal deleted the additions for cash deposits, finding they originated from the assessee's own withdrawals for a property purchase that did not materialize, and confirmed the income's exemption under Section 10(26). For AY 2011-12, the PCIT's Section 263 revisionary order was held invalid due to the assessment being sub-judice before the CIT(A), rendering subsequent assessment proceedings null and void. The Tribunal applied the same rationale as AY 2010-11 to delete the additions and uphold the exemption.