ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2025

The CIT(A) set aside the ex-parte assessment made under Section 144 and remanded the case to the AO for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee proper opportunity, citing the amendment to Section 251. The ITAT upheld the remand principle, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the AO with directions for reconsideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The CIT(A) quashed the notice under Section 148 because the approval for reopening the assessment, which was beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas the law required approval from a higher authority (Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner). The Tribunal concurred with this finding.

The CIT(A) quashed the Section 148 notice, treating it as invalid because the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, and the notice was issued beyond the three-year limitation period, violating Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the AO was not empowered to issue the notice.

The Tribunal found that the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice were indeed issued by the JAO on 23.03.2023, after the effective date of the CBDT notification. Following consistent judgments from the jurisdictional High Court of Telangana and other High Courts, the Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 for faceless assessment were invalid and liable to be quashed. The appeal was allowed on this legal ground, with consequential orders also set aside, and liberty granted to the parties to seek revival if the Supreme Court's decision in a similar pending matter necessitates modification.

The Tribunal held that the addition for opening balance was a double addition. It also found that the loan from the husband was genuine and supported by evidence, thus deleting these additions. However, the addition for cash deposits during demonetization was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and failed to discuss or verify the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to provide proper opportunity, examine all documents, and pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal found that the AO made ad hoc additions without proper verification of the assessee's explanations regarding agricultural income and bank credits. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed their deletion.

The Tribunal found that the AO made ad hoc additions without proper verification of the assessee's explanations regarding agricultural income and bank credits. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed their deletion.

The Tribunal found that the AO made ad hoc additions without proper verification of the assessee's explanations regarding agricultural income and bank credits. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed their deletion.

The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is invalid if issued after a notice under Section 143(2) has been served. Therefore, the disallowance based on the invalid intimation was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief regarding exemption. The penalty orders under Section 271B were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief regarding exemption. The penalty orders under Section 271B were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief regarding exemption. The penalty orders under Section 271B were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that it had previously set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the quantum appeal and remanded it for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty appeals should also be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum assessment appeal is re-decided, as the penalties are based on the additions made in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, thus validating the notice under section 148 as per section 292BB. However, it directed the AO to tax the addition at normal rates, following the favorable view of conflicting High Court judgments on the applicability of Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal noted that it had previously set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the quantum appeal and remanded it for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty appeals should also be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum assessment appeal is re-decided, as the penalties are based on the additions made in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeals for non-prosecution and must decide them on merits as per the provisions of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and does not have the power to dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded both matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief regarding exemption. The penalty orders under Section 271B were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The ITAT found that the assessee's belief of having no taxable income was bona fide, and their failure to seek exemption under the proviso to section 249(4) was prompted by this belief. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought clarification from the assessee regarding their 'not applicable' claim for advance tax payment and afforded them an opportunity to explain. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, thus validating the notice under section 148 as per section 292BB. However, it directed the AO to tax the addition at normal rates, following the favorable view of conflicting High Court judgments on the applicability of Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the JAO lacked the power to issue notices under the faceless assessment regime. However, liberty was granted to revive the appeal based on the Supreme Court's decision on a similar pending issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief regarding exemption. The penalty orders under Section 271B were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided substantial details during the appellate proceedings, which were accepted in the remand report, establishing the source and accounting of the purchases as stock-in-trade.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief regarding exemption. The penalty orders under Section 271B were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding sufficient cause, subject to a cost payment of Rs. 10,000. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to produce all relevant details and supporting evidence for proper verification and re-adjudication, in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application on incorrect grounds, there was no specific provision in Section 80G for condoning delays in filing applications for regular approval. The Tribunal directed the assessee to approach the CBDT for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) primarily dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution. However, considering the serious claim of double taxation and the income belonging to an HUF, a fact verifiable through departmental records, the CIT(A) should have provided a fair opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present relevant details and records.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) primarily dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution. However, considering the serious claim of double taxation and the income belonging to an HUF, a fact verifiable through departmental records, the CIT(A) should have provided a fair opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present relevant details and records.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The ITAT granted the assessee one more opportunity to submit all relevant details and supporting evidences to explain the source of the Rs. 9 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 449 days, accepting the assessee's contention of non-receipt of notices and medical reasons, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the gold coin expenses were partly disallowable due to a violation of Section 40A(3) for a specific cash payment, but the rest were allowable. The entire tour and travel expenses were allowed as they were incurred for business promotion.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the loans by providing confirmation letters, financial statements, bank statements, and proving the source of the source of the loans. Therefore, the AO erred in making additions under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmation letters, PAN, and income tax particulars of the creditors, and that the transactions were routed through proper banking channels. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal observed contradictions regarding the filing date of the audit report and its availability to the A.O. The case was remanded back to the A.O. to verify the actual due date, filing date of the return, and actual filing date of the audit report. The Tribunal held that if the audit report was made available to the A.O. during assessment and a bona fide reason for delay exists, no penalty should be levied.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by including pre-demonetization deposits. It also found that the demonetization period deposits of Rs. 20,79,000/- were from explained sources, vacating the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CPC exceeded its jurisdiction by disallowing the Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1) as the specific provision for such disallowance was introduced later. Therefore, the disallowance was not permissible for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash withdrawals from her bank account on earlier occasions. Since the AO failed to prove the cash was spent for other purposes, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating several legal grounds raised by the assessee, which violates the mandate of Section 250(6). Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's cash book showed an opening cash balance of Rs. 17,39,737/- on 08.11.2016, which was sufficient to cover the disputed cash deposit of Rs. 8,60,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposit, and the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. It rejected the Revenue's contention that the appeals fell under exceptions provided in Para 3.2 and Para 6.2 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, noting a lack of evidence. The appeals were dismissed, but the issues were left open for future proceedings if exceptions were later found to apply.

The Tribunal ruled that once an NCLT-approved resolution plan under Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, becomes binding, all pre-CIRP claims, including those of the Income Tax Department, are frozen and must be given effect as per Supreme Court precedents. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders under Section 156A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, consistent with the NCLT's resolution plan for both assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 29-04-2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, it was affirmed that notices issued after 01-04-2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid as the time limit under the old regime and TOLA had expired. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the assessee had appropriately bifurcated expenses between Tonnage and Non-Tonnage divisions, and the Assessing Officer had accepted the explanations provided. The PCIT's direction to the AO to re-verify the bifurcation was deemed unnecessary.

The Tribunal ruled that once an NCLT-approved resolution plan under Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, becomes binding, all pre-CIRP claims, including those of the Income Tax Department, are frozen and must be given effect as per Supreme Court precedents. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders under Section 156A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, consistent with the NCLT's resolution plan for both assessment years.

The Tribunal found that NHAI had deducted TDS on reimbursement of expenses to the assessee, which the assessee contended was without any mark-up and thus not assessable income. The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed if the transactions are recorded and certificates are furnished by the deductor, even if no corresponding income is assessable in the current year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. It rejected the Revenue's contention that the appeals fell under exceptions provided in Para 3.2 and Para 6.2 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, noting a lack of evidence. The appeals were dismissed, but the issues were left open for future proceedings if exceptions were later found to apply.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was self-contradictory as it reproduced the assessee's written submissions but then stated they were not filed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, finding no infirmity in its refusal to condone the delay. As the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for the 1,817-day delay, and the power to condone delay under Section 249(3) is discretionary, the dismissal of the appeal due to limitation was confirmed.

The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.