ITAT Guwahati Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made the addition based solely on information from the Insight portal without proper verification. The assessee's failure to submit documentary evidence led to the dismissal of their appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and failed to provide evidence, resulting in ex-parte orders by the CIT(Appeals) and the dismissal of appeals. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remit the matter back, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 218 days, citing that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) due to non-appearance of the assessee and lack of merit discussion. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a caution to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and failed to provide evidence, resulting in ex-parte orders by the CIT(Appeals) and the dismissal of appeals. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance and lack of evidence. To meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to an inadvertent error by the Chartered Accountant, not a malafide intention of the assessee. The assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, and the CIT(A) should have considered condoning it.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) after the date of search was non-est in law because the assessment was pending on the date of search and should have abated. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings based on this order were also invalid.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay. The assessee explained the delay was due to not receiving timely communication of the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee also argued that the tax demand was based on a system-generated error and not substantiated by the audited financials.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the source of cash deposits was not explained during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the source of cash deposits was not explained during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the source of cash deposits was not explained during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the source of cash deposits was not explained during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed for exemption under Section 11 & 12 and registered under Section 12A. However, the lower authorities found that the assessee did not follow the proper procedure for claiming exemption and could not substantiate their claims with sufficient documents.

For ITA No. 245/GTY/2025, the Tribunal remitted the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide cogent documentary evidence. For ITA No. 246/GTY/2025, the Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271B, noting the assessee's failure to maintain books of accounts and obtain an audit report despite turnover exceeding specified limits.

For ITA No. 245/GTY/2025, the Tribunal remitted the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide cogent documentary evidence. For ITA No. 246/GTY/2025, the Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271B, noting the assessee's failure to maintain books of accounts and obtain an audit report despite turnover exceeding specified limits.