ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground of non-compliance with the cost payment order, without adjudicating the merits. While acknowledging the delay in payment, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation of it being an inadvertent mistake due to her lack of awareness. The Tribunal admonished the default and imposed further cost.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on railway tracks, conveyor belts, and ventilation ducting was temporary, site-specific, and non-enduring beyond the contract period, thus constituting revenue expenditure. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without addressing the grounds of appeal, including jurisdictional issues and the merits of the case. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on opening cash balance as it was accepted in the preceding year's scrutiny assessment. The additions on agricultural income and loan from mother were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the registration application by the CIT(E) was based on an inquiry conducted without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.

The tribunal held that the dividend income was indeed exempt and deleted the addition made by the CPC. The ground regarding disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed. The issue of double taxation of capital gains was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the deposits were from sale proceeds of liquor and eateries, he failed to provide complete details, including the cash book, to the AO. The Tribunal also observed that certain cash receipts from individuals noted in the cash book were not explained and appeared after the demonetization period.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground of non-compliance with the cost payment order, without adjudicating the merits. While acknowledging the delay in payment, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation of it being an inadvertent mistake due to her lack of awareness. The Tribunal admonished the default and imposed further cost.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground of non-compliance with the cost payment order, without adjudicating the merits. While acknowledging the delay in payment, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation of it being an inadvertent mistake due to her lack of awareness. The Tribunal admonished the default and imposed further cost.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground of non-compliance with the cost payment order, without adjudicating the merits. While acknowledging the delay in payment, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation of it being an inadvertent mistake due to her lack of awareness. The Tribunal admonished the default and imposed further cost.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground of non-compliance with the cost payment order, without adjudicating the merits. While acknowledging the delay in payment, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation of it being an inadvertent mistake due to her lack of awareness. The Tribunal admonished the default and imposed further cost.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not sufficient or bonafide. The Tribunal found that the assessee had consciously decided not to appeal earlier and the reliance on the counsel's advice was not a valid ground for condoning such a significant delay.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground of non-compliance with the cost payment order, without adjudicating the merits. While acknowledging the delay in payment, the Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation of it being an inadvertent mistake due to her lack of awareness. The Tribunal admonished the default and imposed further cost.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of the partnership firm's books, bank statements of the firm and directors, and the assessee's own books. The transactions were found to be recorded and routed through banking channels, proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash from business receipts, supported by the cash book and debtor confirmations. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made additions based on suspicion without contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148A and the subsequent notice under section 148 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, making them illegal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected the contention regarding the absence of DIN in the assessment order. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for agricultural income by restoring the issue to the AO for one final opportunity to produce evidence. The Tribunal accepted the explanations for past savings and collection from trade debtors and directed the deletion of these additions.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (bank statements of the father) which explained the source of funds for the purchase. It was held that the payments were made out of an explained bank balance and directly to the seller, thus eligible for deduction as cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to avoid meritorious cases being thrown out on technicalities. The death of the professional handling the case and the subsequent communication gap, with notices being sent to an outdated email ID, were considered beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals in limine. Consequently, the delay of 10 months and 27 days for AYs 2016-2017 and 2022-2023, and 01 month and 01 day for AY 2023-2024, was condoned. Furthermore, since the assessment proceedings were ex-parte and the assessee did not get an opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A), the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a reply to the show-cause notice on 03.12.2019, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also ignored the relevant documents and replies filed by the assessee. The addition was made under Section 68 based on cash seized, which the assessee contended was out of sales and not a cash credit entry.

The Tribunal condoned the 11-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's ill health, finding it to be a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the issues on merits were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Regarding the 40-day delay before the Tribunal, the assessee claimed the appeal was electronically filed within the due date, but the delay arose from uploading signed documents. However, the Tribunal found no cogent reasons to condone the 40-day delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not justified as the assessee eventually complied with the notices and provided all necessary documents. The penalty under Section 271B was also deleted, considering the assessee's bonafide reasons for the delay in filing the audit report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals in limine. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, including the demise of their accountant and communication breakdown, were considered genuine and bonafide, establishing a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay.

The Ld. JCIT dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of the incorrect mention of the section in Form 35, without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The Tribunal held that this dismissal was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not justified as the assessee eventually complied with the notices and provided all necessary documents. The penalty under Section 271B was also deleted, considering the assessee's bonafide reasons for the delay in filing the audit report.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not the Faceless Assessing Officer, which violates the Faceless Assessment Scheme. Therefore, the assessment order passed consequently is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee provided bank statements and sale deeds, there were discrepancies and the money trail was not consistently explained with dates and events before the AO. However, additional evidence was filed before the Tribunal, which needed verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reply and supporting evidence, filed a day late but on the date of the impugned order, should have been considered by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals in limine. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, including the demise of their accountant and communication breakdown, were considered genuine and bonafide, establishing a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on railway tracks, conveyor belts, and ventilation ducting was temporary, site-specific, and non-enduring beyond the contract period, thus constituting revenue expenditure. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on railway tracks, conveyor belts, and ventilation ducting was temporary, site-specific, and non-enduring beyond the contract period, thus constituting revenue expenditure. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on railway tracks, conveyor belts, and ventilation ducting was temporary, site-specific, and non-enduring beyond the contract period, thus constituting revenue expenditure. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted additional evidence, including a correct valuation report and bills for improvement expenditure, due to a bonafide mistake in filing the initial report for a different property. The Tribunal found this additional evidence required verification.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on railway tracks, conveyor belts, and ventilation ducting was temporary, site-specific, and non-enduring beyond the contract period, thus constituting revenue expenditure. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the reasons for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide on the condonation of delay and thereafter adjudicate the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for framing an assessment after a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The assessment framed without this notice was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 1, 2021, and since it was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, it was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, this was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the medical certificate provided by the assessee for his mother's illness was issued after the period of non-compliance and did not establish a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's involvement in online gaming activities and found the explanation for non-compliance unconvincing.

The Tribunal remanded the issues of disallowance of depreciation, addition of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after factual verification. It upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of interest on delayed TDS, citing a Madras High Court judgment. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim of denial of proper opportunity of being heard and directed the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's claim regarding a large capital expenditure amount, ensuring adherence to Rule 46A for additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is invalid. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 1, 2021, and since it was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, it was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide, thus condoning the delay. It also admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including balance sheets and ledger accounts of the sundry creditor, as these were not available to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act was invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years instead of separate satisfaction notes for each year. This was based on a precedent from the Karnataka High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without proper consideration of the documents submitted and without providing a speaking order or adequate opportunity for hearing. The Ld. DR also conceded that the impugned order lacked specific findings or reasoning.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm acted under a bona fide belief that their appeal would be automatically withdrawn due to compliance with the VSVS scheme. The non-appearance was due to this mistaken belief, not a lackadaisical approach. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the seized 'agreement of sale' lacked signatures of the assessee or vendors and was therefore unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the property was acquired by the assessee after the date of the alleged agreement, and it was later sold to a third party. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to prove actual cash receipt.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of depreciation disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verifying facts. The addition of unexplained cash deposits was also set aside for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of interest on delayed TDS was upheld. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's grievance regarding Rule 46A was not accepted, but the CIT(A) was directed to verify the claim of capital expenditure.

The Tribunal admitted an affidavit from M/s Sai Sri Constructions as additional evidence, which clarified that the write-off was an accounting adjustment and not a remission of liability. However, since this evidence was not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act was invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years instead of separate satisfaction notes for each year. This was based on a precedent from the Karnataka High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court.