ITAT Guwahati Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The notice under Section 148 was issued despite the assessee clarifying the source of funds, making the reopening bad in law.

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, 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, 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 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 held that the assessee had expressed an intention to surrender the income through a letter much before the AO issued any adverse notice. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment and a similar case of the assessee's brother, the Tribunal found no intention to conceal income.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the delay in filing Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee should not be denied the deduction on this ground. It was also held that adjustments under Section 36(1)(va) must be considered for computing the deduction under Section 80IE.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee should not be denied the deduction on this ground. It was also held that adjustments under Section 36(1)(va) must be considered for computing the deduction under Section 80IE.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee should not be denied the deduction on this ground. It was also held that adjustments under Section 36(1)(va) must be considered for computing the deduction under Section 80IE.

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 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.

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 noted that while res judicata doesn't apply to tax proceedings, earlier evidence has value. Given the fresh evidence presented before the CIT(A) and the lender's alleged involvement in other proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as withdrawals from the assessee's own bank accounts, which were then redeposited. Therefore, these deposits could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as withdrawals from the assessee's own bank accounts, which were then redeposited. Therefore, these deposits could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources.