ITAT Guwahati Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A), indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, and the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the case was reopened based on information that the assessee received Rs. 25 lacs as share application money from a shell company. The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the share applicants even before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's prayer for another opportunity, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the 47-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merit after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal to be bonafide and genuine, and thus condoned the 47-day delay. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the invalidity of the assessment order due to lack of notice u/s 143(2) was dismissed as no valid return of income was filed. The Tribunal also found that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the legitimate source of bank deposits or compute business income for claiming exemption u/s 10(26).

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues should be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee's legal heir should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT considered the submissions of both parties and, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case with supporting documents.

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities passed ex parte orders without considering the assessee's submissions. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to provide supporting documents and disregard for notices throughout the appellate process. Despite the Ld. CIT(A)'s dismissal, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide cogent documents and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The assessee was found to have shown disregard for notices and did not provide reasonable cause for non-compliance. The CIT(A) noted the assessee's lack of interest in substantiating claims with evidence, likening it to not being vigilant. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A). Before the ITAT, the assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to rebut findings and did not consider submissions on merits.

The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their claims during appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), despite multiple opportunities and notices. The CIT(A) noted the assessee's disregard for notices and lack of reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of appeals. The ITAT observed that legal grounds were not argued, but considering the interests of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent disregard for notices and failure to provide evidence. The legal grounds were not argued, and the assessee did not demonstrate vigilance in pursuing their appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's stand was in contempt of the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period. The AO's action in considering the return as delayed was deprecated.

The Tribunal noted that there is no bar on directors providing interest-free or lower-interest loans. The loans were not claimed as bogus or for non-business purposes. The CIT(A)'s order on VAT remission was based on a prior decision, and the fixed deposits were held to be for business purposes. Thus, no interference was found necessary in the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal noted that the payments were made to transporters on behalf of the supplier for reimbursement and debited to the supplier's account. It was argued that these were not payments for supplies. The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the AO for reassessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim of not receiving the intimation order constituted a sufficient cause for the delay, and in fact, there was no delay based on the affidavit. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) and restored the appeal back for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal noted that no addition was made to the returned income in the assessment order, and the demand was incorrectly computed. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on procedural grounds without deciding on merits.