ITAT Guwahati Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that approval under Section 153D must be granted for 'each assessment year' separately, involving an independent application of mind by the approving authority. Since the approval in this case was a consolidated order for ten entities across multiple assessment years, it was deemed mechanical and invalid. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153A, based on this invalid approval, was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that once the assessee provides cogent evidence of repaying the loans in subsequent assessment years, an addition under Section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that such repayment effectively establishes the genuineness of the transactions, identity of the lenders, and their creditworthiness, citing precedents from various High Courts.

The Tribunal, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, held that the approval granted under Section 153D must be for 'each assessment year' and 'each assessee' separately, requiring independent application of mind by the approving authority. The consolidated approval given for ten persons/entities together was deemed mechanical and invalid. Consequently, the approval under Section 153D and the assessment framed under Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D for the assessments was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for ten persons/entities covering multiple assessment years on a single day. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such a mechanical approval invalidates the assessment orders framed under Section 153A. Therefore, both the approval and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. For the first issue, it noted the assessee consistently followed the project completion method (AS-9) and recognized revenue in subsequent years, thus the AO's addition would lead to double taxation. For the second issue, the Tribunal found that the transactions with the related party were current account in nature, not pure loans, and the assessee had capitalized any interest, not claimed it as an expense, making the addition unwarranted.

The Tribunal, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, held that the approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessees/assessment years in a consolidated, mechanical manner, without individual application of mind to each case and year, was invalid. Consequently, the approval granted under Section 153D and the assessment orders framed under Section 153A based on such a flawed approval were quashed.

The tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessees and assessment years was invalid because it lacked individual application of mind as mandated by law. Citing various judicial precedents, it ruled that prior approval under Section 153D must be granted separately for each assessee and each assessment year with due diligence. Consequently, the mechanical approval and the assessment framed based on it were quashed.

The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer had merely reproduced information from the Investigation Wing without recording independent reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. This 'borrowed satisfaction' without proper application of mind rendered the reopening under Section 147/148 and the subsequent assessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction as the relevant provisions of Section 151A were notified on the same day the order was framed. Furthermore, the reopening of assessment was deemed bad in law due to non-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction, as the assessee had no dealings with the brokers whose statements were relied upon by the AO. The Tribunal quashed the assessment and the reopening.

The Tribunal found that the AO's denial of a mandatory personal hearing, despite the assessee's request, violated Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. It concluded that the addition under Section 69C was based on suspicion and that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment with proper opportunity granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both counts. It confirmed the 0.5% corporate guarantee fee rate, citing previous co-ordinate bench decisions for the assessee's own case. It also affirmed that the excise duty exemption is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax and not includible in book profit for MAT under Section 115JB, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision in the assessee's own case.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine based on procedural delays and lack of English translations, thereby denying the assessee a proper hearing on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and compliance with Rule 46A. The findings for AY 2016-17 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2022-23 as the facts were identical.

Citing lack of proper representation and ex-parte assessments at lower levels, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years. It remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, ensuring the assessee a full opportunity to present her case and substantiate her claim for exemption under section 10(26).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, allow further submissions following Rule 46A, and involve the AO if necessary, ensuring a speaking order is passed.

Considering the lack of proper compliance by the assessee's consultant before both the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of both lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard and submit explanations, with a directive not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the assessee's contention regarding the year of loan receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh examination of facts and to determine the correct assessment year in which the liability for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act arose.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits, including the assessee's claim of Section 10(26) exemption. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity of being heard. The same findings were applied to AY 2022-23 as the facts were identical.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was ex parte and the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to present her claim for exemption under Section 10(26) before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, directing a fresh opportunity of hearing to be provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without obtaining a remand report, which is a contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) also failed to properly examine the source and quantum of income or its correlation to the bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was under Section 144 and involved Section 10(26) of the Act. Considering the CIT(A)'s dismissal based on filing delay, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s order and the original assessment order, remanding the case to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeals. Observing the assessee's non-representation before the lower authorities, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to respond promptly to future notices.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11, despite the changes in registration provisions.

For AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 302/Gty/2025), the Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 issued on 28.07.2022 was time-barred and, relying on precedents, quashed the assessment proceedings. For AY 2016-17 (ITA No. 303/Gty/2025), the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing that the assessee be allowed to cross-examine the third party and present rebuttal evidence, emphasizing the department's burden of proof for unexplained investments.

The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeals, accepting the reasons provided. Recognizing the appellant's non-appearance before the lower authorities, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an expectation that the assessee will respond promptly to future notices.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the reassessment notice u/s 148 issued on 28.07.2022 was time-barred, rendering the consequential assessment void. For AY 2016-17, the matter regarding the unexplained investment was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, specifically instructing to allow the assessee cross-examination of the third party and consider additional evidence.

The Tribunal, applying principles from Supreme Court judgments regarding 'sufficient cause' and condonation of delay, found the assessee's reasons for delay persuasive. It held that a liberal, justice-oriented approach should be taken, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, remanding all four matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) carefully reviewed the Ld. DR's arguments and the case records. The Tribunal determined that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly applied the legal provisions based on its findings in paragraph 6.2 of the impugned order and had validly granted relief. Consequently, the ITAT decided not to intervene with the CIT(A)'s conclusions.

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, applying a liberal and justice-oriented approach based on Supreme Court precedents regarding 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, found the assessee's reasons persuasive. It condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned orders, and remanded all four matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court pronouncements on 'sufficient cause' (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee), adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It found the assessee's explanations for the delay credible, condoned the delays, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded all four matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing comprehensive documentation regarding the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan, which was for investment in an educational institution. It criticized the authorities below for basing the addition on mere suspicion and untested material, and for violating natural justice by denying the assessee cross-examination of adverse statements. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a request to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not sufficiently investigated the genuineness of the sources of funds, including gifts and transactions with M/s CMJ Foundation, and the implications of an ongoing CID investigation against the assessee. Noting that IDS benefits do not extend to income from certain illegal activities, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to segregate year-specific deposits, verify the veracity of gifts, examine the genuineness of transactions with CMJ Foundation and Shri CM Jha, and ascertain the status of the CID case against the assessee.

The ITAT observed significant factual inaccuracies and a lack of proper verification by both the AO and CIT(A). Due to the unexamined nature of additional evidence, the reliance on the IDS-2016 declaration by the assessee's son, and concerns regarding transactions with M/s CMJ Foundation, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment with specific directions for thorough examination and verification.