ITAT Guwahati Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, where similar interest expenditure was allowed. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The tribunal held that relief under section 89(1) should not be denied for a technical breach like non-filing of Form 10E within the stipulated time. The addition for salary discrepancy was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with evidence and an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed ex-parte as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for cash deposits to both the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT held that the assessee wrongly claimed losses which were not allowable, thus furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty, finding the claim was not genuine, and restored the AO's order.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act, as no response was made despite notices. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary documents and cash flow/expense evidence to the AO and CIT(A), making it impossible to ascertain sources of cash. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for re-adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the books of accounts were seized and not examined by the lower authorities, the matter should be restored to the AO. This is to allow the AO to examine the books and decide the case denovo after giving the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the books of accounts/documents were seized and consequently not produced before the lower authorities, the orders were passed without considering them. To ensure justice and fair play, the cases were restored to the file of the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide and genuine reasons. Finding that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without looking into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed as the foundation for their levy would not survive.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be prioritized over technicalities. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present documents.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, while condoning the delay, noted the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and bona fide. It condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the registration under Section 80G cannot be denied solely for the reason of late filing of Form 10AB. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the Commissioner for a decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities, the AO and the CIT(A), had not considered the evidence furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the case to the AO for a fresh adjudication (denovo) after taking into account all the submitted evidence and providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide and genuine reasons. The Tribunal also admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

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 noted that summons issued to the persons who provided the cash for LIC premiums and vehicle sale were not complied with. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of these individuals.

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 observed that the assessee had not provided the necessary domicile and local authority certificates to substantiate their claim. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

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 observed that a crucial chart detailing net taxable income was not presented to the lower authorities. Consequently, to ensure justice and ascertain the correct income, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

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 found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without deciding on merits, violating Section 250(6). Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a proper hearing.

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 issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate after considering the evidences and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalty appeal was quashed as the foundation for penalty levy would not survive with the restoration of the assessment order.

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 observed that the details of cash withdrawals and reintroductions needed to be examined at the Assessing Officer's level. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the evidence filed by the assessee.

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 found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and bona fide. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a proper hearing opportunity.

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 ITAT held that the appeal filed before it was not maintainable as the assessee had not exhausted the remedy of appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed, but liberty was granted to the assessee to file an appeal before the CIT(A) within 30 days, with a direction to condone the delay.

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 noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the case on merit after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals as it was for bonafide reasons. The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed, with liberty to the AO to re-initiate penalty proceedings if required.