ITAT Guwahati Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its claim, and the Assessing Officer was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to provide evidence before lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity for substantial justice. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with directions for the assessee to furnish all necessary supporting documents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the exemption claim under Section 10(26). The assessee was directed to furnish supporting documents and evidence, with a cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed for non-compliance.

The tribunal held that while the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was adequate, the assessee was not provided with crucial evidence for rebuttal. Therefore, the matter on merits was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the six-month time limit under Section 12AA(2) did not apply to the assessee's application. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide convincing replies, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

The tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the disallowance based on suspicion without disproving the assessee's elaborate explanation for cash deposits. Since the verification unit confirmed the floriculture activity and no contrary evidence was found, the addition was deleted.

The tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the six-month time limit under Section 12AA(2) did not apply to the assessee's application. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide convincing replies, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's prayer and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide substantiating documents.

The Tribunal found that the submissions of the assessee were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute involved the applicability of Section 115BAC/87A and the non-consideration of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merit, even if the assessee does not appear. The dismissal without considering the merits of the addition made under Section 69A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were not substantiated by any corroborating evidence. Therefore, the appeals could not be admitted.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were unsubstantiated due to the lack of medical certificates. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee controls Form 26AS. The CIT(A)'s direction to grant TDS credit if income is offered is in accordance with the Act.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was ex-parte and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was ex-parte and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of the exemption claim and penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the text message could not be treated as a dumb document as the assessee admitted it contained a business transaction. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to provide any explanation or cooperation.

The Tribunal held that any addition must be supported by reasons in the assessment order, and taxing an amount through computation without basis in the assessment order amounts to double taxation. The nature of the income also requires verification.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's AR was not in uniform or proper dress code. Based on this observation, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of Section 10(26) for exemption claimed by the assessee, a Scheduled Tribe residing in a notified area, was not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after examining the agent, M. Haque. The Tribunal noted that business exigencies might necessitate cash payments and that the agent had not been examined by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to establish the transfer of creditors. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the transaction trail and its legal permissibility.

The Tribunal found it imperative in the interest of justice to grant the assessee one more opportunity to submit its response to the notice. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be casually and improperly passed, lacking consideration of the assessee's actual facts and grounds. The order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, noting the lack of supporting documents for the assessee's claim of exemption under Section 10(26), decided to grant one more opportunity to substantiate the claim. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating on merit is unsustainable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating on merits is unsustainable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the credits in both assessment and appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.