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 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, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 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 acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. It was noted that the assessee, despite being given sufficient opportunities, did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered this attitude as being against the principles of natural justice. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the issues in these appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal did not survive because the grounds raised by the revenue did not correlate with the decision of the CIT(A), particularly on the legal issue concerning the validity of the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal agreed that the appeal was infructuous.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. It was noted that the assessee, despite being given sufficient opportunities, did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered this attitude as being against the principles of natural justice. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the issues in these appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. It was noted that the assessee, despite being given sufficient opportunities, did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered this attitude as being against the principles of natural justice. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the issues in these appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the matter was remitted back.

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 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 acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. It was noted that the assessee, despite being given sufficient opportunities, did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered this attitude as being against the principles of natural justice. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the issues in these appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the matter was remitted back.

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 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 held that in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for re-adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that it was not provided with adequate opportunity to furnish the required documentation and that procedural constraints prevented timely submission. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prayer to present all details before the CIT(E). The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee claims inadequate opportunity and procedural difficulties in submitting documents for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G, the matter should be remanded to the lower authority for a fresh adjudication after granting a proper opportunity. The operative direction is to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.

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 Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for re-adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that it was not provided with adequate opportunity to furnish the required documentation and that procedural constraints prevented timely submission. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prayer to present all details before the CIT(E). The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee claims inadequate opportunity and procedural difficulties in submitting documents for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G, the matter should be remanded to the lower authority for a fresh adjudication after granting a proper opportunity. The operative direction is to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the case on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) on both issues. Regarding the unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had categorically recorded that while the AO arrived at a correct conclusion that the unsecured loans availed by M/s Kishlay Snacks Products were from bogus parties, the AO failed to take the correct action by making the corresponding addition in the hands of M/s Kishlay Snacks Products, who had availed these loans. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not been able to dislodge these specific findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A), which were substantially drawn from the assessment order itself. Therefore, no reason was found to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. Concerning the share purchase, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had extracted details from the assessment order and correctly concluded that the shares were allotted in 2014, purchased in 2017, and sold in 2017, clearly relating to AY 2017-18, not the impugned AY 2018-19. As the Revenue could not point out how these transactions relating to AY 2017-18 could be assessed in AY 2018-19, the CIT(A)'s findings were upheld.

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 lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of diligence and failure to substantiate claims before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the interests of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for the assessee to provide cogent documents.

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 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 held that a statement recorded during a survey under section 133A, without corroborating material, cannot solely form the basis for additions. The assessee's husband's statement was an estimate and not conclusive proof of income.

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.

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 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 observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated the issue on merits and had dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance and non-compliance. To ensure the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing.