ITAT Guwahati Judgments — March 2026

The ITAT condoned the assessee's delay in filing the present appeal and found the 343-day delay before the CIT(A) to be bona fide. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be bogus, the entire amount could not be disallowed, especially when sales were not doubted and accounts were not rejected. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 3% on the bogus purchases, considering it as reasonable profit earned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary re-adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which had allowed the assessee's appeal based on the finding that the assessment was framed against a non-existent entity. Consequently, the quantum appeal of the revenue was dismissed. The penalty appeal was also dismissed as it no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide. It restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeals were allowed, quashing the penalties, with liberty for the AO to re-initiate proceedings if required.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the property documents, affidavit filed before the Election Commission, and cash deposit details. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the chart of net taxable income was not before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to ascertain the real income of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without properly detailing the points of determination and reasons.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns for earlier years and therefore, brought forward losses could not be carried forward. However, since the chart detailing the correct income was not before the lower authorities, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be carried forward and set off if returns of income were not filed for those years. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering the provided chart.

The Tribunal held that once the return filed under Section 153A is accepted by the AO, there is no basis for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment in relation to the original Section 139(1) return. For the second appeal, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that once the return of income filed under Section 153A is accepted, the Assessing Officer has no locus standi to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) with reference to the original return filed under Section 139(1). The penalty was not maintainable as the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found.

The Tribunal condoned the delay finding it to be for bonafide and genuine reasons. It was held that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found the assessee did not provide evidence despite opportunities. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary re-adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in similar cases, where the addition on account of long-term capital gain from the sale of shares was deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences had a strong bearing on the correct determination and assessment of income. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted these evidences and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after considering the admitted evidences.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the reasons provided were genuine and bona fide. The assessment was restored to the file of the AO for a decision on merit, and the penalty appeals were quashed as their foundation was affected.

The Tribunal condoned the 312-day delay, finding the reasons genuine and bona fide. The quantum appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits, and the penalty appeals were quashed as their foundation was gone, with liberty to the AO to re-initiate penalty proceedings if required.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.