ITAT Guwahati Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merits. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce the required documents to prove that the cash deposit belonged to Smt. Hmangaihzuali and not to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and that the assessment order was ex parte.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The assessee's explanation for the delay was not found to be sufficient cause.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the money belonged to customers and that furnishing detailed records was difficult. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee contended the additions were made beyond the scope of scrutiny and without proper show-cause notices. Since the assessee was not properly represented at both assessment and appeal stages, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims regarding exemption and lower profit margins, despite non-compliance at earlier stages.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and make submissions.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their exemption claim. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and held that the appeal should have been decided on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence but, considering the beneficial nature of Section 10(26) and the business being licensed by the State, granted one final opportunity. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be granted in the year the corresponding income is assessable, even if it differs from the year reflected in Form 26AS. For TCS, credit should be given once collected at source, irrespective of the collector's deposit status.

The Tribunal held that the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merits. It was considered that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to substantiate their medical condition and present their case.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment proceedings were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, the consequential penalty proceedings also needed reconsideration. The penalty cannot survive independently if the basis for its imposition is not yet final.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was ex-parte and proper submissions might not have been made. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 67 within the prescribed time limit does not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim after proper verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the penalty matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the proceedings to the AO for de novo reassessment. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to present legal issues and evidence, given the lack of proper compliance at earlier stages.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Section 292BA, which clarifies that assessment orders are not invalid due to mistakes in quoting DIN, and the lack of adequate opportunity for the AO, warranted setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that due to disturbances in Manipur, the assessee may not have had a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was contradictory as it applied Section 69A for unexplained deposits but then estimated profit, which was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.